SI  AC* 


S  INTERNAL    REVENUE. 

037 

442 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON.  GEORGE  D.  WISE, 


OF    VIRGINIA, 


IN   THE 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


Thursday,  March  3, 1887. 


WASHINGTON 
1887. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.   GEORGE    D.  WISE. 


The  House  having  under  consideration  a  bill  to  modify  the  internal-revenue 
system  of  legislation,  and  for  other  purposes — 

Mr.  WISE  said: 

Mr.  SPEAKER:  This  bill  contains  many  important  provisions,  and,  if 
passed,  will  afford  relief  from  many  of  the  annoyances  and  hardships 
of  an  odious  system  of  taxation.  So  far  from  diminishing,  I  am  satis- 
fied that  its  effect  would  be  to  increase  the  revenues  of  the  Govern- 
ment by  preventing  prosecutions  for  trivial  offenses.  If  gentlemen  will 
examine  in  this  connection  the  letters  from  Mr.  Durham,  the  First 
Comptroller,  addressed  to  Mr.  Jones,  United  States  attorney  for  the 
western  district  of  North  Carolina,  they  will  be  convinced  that  large 
sums  of  money  are  annually  being  taken  from  the  Treasury  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  costs  of  such  prosecutions  without  compensating  or  bene- 
ficial results.  He  tells  us  that  the  practice  followed  in  issuing  war- 
rants for  alleged  violations  of  the  internal-revenue  laws  in  this  district 
resulted  in  bringing  to  the  Treasury  during  the  fiscal  year  ending 
June  30,  1886,  the  sum  of  §265,  and  in  taking  therefrom  the  sum  of 
$1,807.41. 

An  examination  of  the  accounts  of  United  States  commissioners  and 
deputy  marshals  reveals  the  existence  of  methods  in  the  inauguration 
of  criminal  proceedings  which  call  loudly  for  legislative  correction.  The 
provisions  of  this  bill,  which  have  for  their  object  the  extinguishment 
of  these  practices,  have  been  carefully  considered  and  favorably  reported 
by  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  of  this  House,  and  it  seems  to  me 
that  no  one  should  halt  in  the  opinion  that  they  should  be  adopted. 

The  producer  of  leaf-tobacco  is  limited  by  existing  statutes  in  the 
disposition  of  his  crop  to  licensed  dealers,  except  that  he  may  sell  at 
the  place  of  production  at  retail  directly  to  consumers,  to  an  amount 
not  exceeding  $100  annually.  And  he  is  forbidden  even  to  issue  as 
rations  or  supplies  to  his  laborers  or  employe's  tobacco  of  his  own  growth 
and  raising  in  excess  of  100  pounds  in  any  special  tax  year,  without 
first  having  paid  the  special  tax  of  a  dealer  in  manufactured  tobacco. 
These  restrictions  work  a  great  hardship  to  the  tillers  of  the  soil,  and 
should  not  be  continued  when  there  is  no  necessity  for  them.  They 
are  especially  injurious  to  the  small  farmers,  who  should  be  the  objects 
of  the  fostering  care  of  the  Government,  instead  of  being  subjected  to 
unfriendly  and  repressive  legislation. 

No  citizen,  except  under  peculiar  circumstances,  requiring  the  exer- 
cise of  such  an  extraordinary  power,  should  be  deprived  of  the  right  to 
dispose  of  the  products  of  his  toil  and  labor  as  he  pleases;  and  if  this 
internal -revenue  system  cannot  be  maintained  without  interfering  with 
the  rights  of  ownership  of  private  property,  that  fact  is  the  best  argu- 


200,3106 


ment  against  its  perpetuation.  As  the  tax  is  paid  by  the  manufacturer 
of  tobacco,  I  am  unable  to  discover  a  reason  1'or  the  continuance  of  this 
limitation  upon  the  producer  thereof. 

While  this  bill  is  a  step  in  the  right  direction,  and  will,  as  I  have 
said,  afford  relief  from  many  unnecessary  hardships  and  vexations,  it 
stops  short  of  that  full  measure  of  relief  for  which  my  people  have  pe- 
titioned. The  people  of  the  States  in  which  the  culture  and  manufact- 
ure of  tobacco  are  important  industries  are  loud  in  their  demands  for 
the  abolition  of  the  system  of  direct  taxation  known  as  the  internal 
revenue,  which  was  resorted  to  with  reluctance  when  the  country  was 
in  the  throes  of  a  gigantic  civil  war. 

We  have  been  deluged  with  a  flood  of  petitions  favoring  action  in 
this  direction,  coming  from  t  he  best  representatives  of  the  industries  and 
the  interests  involved.  These  petitions  were  sent  here  not  by  moon- 
shiners, of  whom  gentlemen  speak  contemptuously,  but  by  men  of  large 
experience  and  commanding  influence,  and  they  embody  the  sentiments 
of  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  people  of  the  States  where  the 
vexations  and  hardships  inherent  in  the  administration  of  the  system 
are  felt.  They  come  from  gentlemen  who  have  an  intelligent  appreci- 
ation of  the  subject,  and  whose  views  and  opinions  are  worthy  of  re- 
spectful consideration.  Their  clamors  for  relief  can  not  be  silenced  by 
sneers  or  denunciation. 

' '  From  the  foundation  of  this  Government  taxes  collected  at  the  cus- 
tom-house have  been  the  chief  source  of  Federal  revenue,"  and  such  in 
my  opinion  theyshould  continue  to  be.  Internal  taxes  have  never  been 
resorted  to,  except  when  required  by  extraordinary  emergencies,  and 
on  all  former  occasions  were  repealed  promptly  when  the  necessity  for 
their  imposition  ceased  to  exist.  They  have  never  failed  toarou.se  a 
feeling  of  discontent  among  the  people.  The  first  attempt  to  obtain 
revenue  by  this  method,  authorized  by  the  first  Congress  which  assem- 
bled under  the  Constitution,  caused  in  the  western  counties  of  Penn- 
sylvania what  is  known  in  history  as  the  "whisky  rebellion."  The 
spirit  of  resistance  which  it  aroused  was  so  violent  and  persistent  as 
to  require  an  armed  force  for  its  subj  ugation. 

The  present  system  was  devised  and  put  into  operation  during  our 
civil  war,  but  not  until  nearly  fifteen  months  after  its  outbreak.  Even 
then,  when  the  requirements  of  the  Government  for  money  were  most 
urgent,  and  when  a  sufficiency  of  it  for  the  equipment  and  supply  of 
troops  could  not  be  obtained  from  other  sources  of  revenue,  Congress 
hesitated  to  resort  to  this  method.  It  was  feared  that  the  imposition 
of  direct  or  internal  taxation  would  create  such  discontent  as  to  inter- 
fere with  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war.  Twenty- two  years  have 
passed  since  the  termination  of  hostilities,  and  these  internal-revenue 
taxes  remain,  and  there  are  many  here  unwilling  even  to  make  such  a 
modification  of  the  statutes  which  authorize  their  collection  as  will 
render  them  less  odious  and  obnoxious. 

The  people  are  restless  under  the  unnecessary  exactions  to  which 
they  are  subjected,  and  while  their  opposition  has  not  been  carried  to 
the  extent  of  forcible  resistance,  their  demands  for  corrective  legisla- 
tion are  loud  and  deep.  The  day  of  their  deliverance  may  be  post- 
poned, but  this  agitation  for  reform  will  continue  until  existing  abuses 
and  evils  shall  have  ceased  to  exist.  Our  attention  has  been  repeat- 
edly directed  to  the  necessity  for  the  reduction  of  the  revenues  of  the 
Government,  which  can  only  be  accomplished  by  a  thorough  and  radi- 
cal revision  of  our  fiscal  arrangements. 


We  are  told  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  his  last  annual  re- 
port that  under  the  operation  of  existing  laws  the  proceeds  of  surplus 
taxation  amount  to  more  than  $100,000,000  per  annum.  The  effect 
of  the  continuance  of  this  useless  depletion  of  the  earnings  of  the  peo- 
ple must  be  to  paralyze  business  and  cripple  industries.  If  this  annual 
surplus  should  be  kept  locked  in  the  vaults  of  the  Treasury  a  panic, 
would  thereby  inevitably  be  created,  and  the  result  would  be  wide- 
spread ruin  and  disaster.  This  vast  surplus  can  not  be  much  longer 
used  in  the  extinguishment  of  our  indebtedness  without  paying  to  the 
creditors  of  the  Government  large  premiums  in  the  purchase  of  bonds 
before  the  dates  of  their  maturity. 

Upon  this  subject  the  President  in  his  annual  message  says  that — 

The  application  of  the  surplus  to  the  payment  of  such  portion  of  the  public 
debt  as  is  now  at  our  option  subject  to  extinguishment,  if  continued  at  the  rate 
which  has  lately  prevailed,  would  retire  that  class  of  indebtedness  •within  less 
than  one  year  from  this  date.  Thus  a  continuation  of  our  present  revenue  sys- 
tem would  soon  result  in  the  receipt  of  an  annual  income  much  greater  than 
necessary  to  meet  Government  expenses,  with  no  indebtedness  upon  which  it 
could  be  applied. 

The  employment  of  this  surplus  in  useless  and  unnecessary  expendi- 
tures is  not  to  be  thought  of  as  an  excuse  for  its  continuance.  There 
is  but  one  remedy  for  the  evil,  and  that  is  to  be  found  in  the  immedi- 
ate reduction  of  taxation. 

We  have  reached  the  point  when  something  must  be  done  to  escape 
the  dangers  close  at  hand.  We  will  soon  be  confronted  with  the  serious 
and  blighting  consequences,  which  must  inevitably  follow,  if  some 
action  be  not  taken  "to  transfer  our  present  and  accruing  proceeds  of 
surplus  taxation  from  the  Treasury  vaults  to  the  pockets  of  the  peo- 
ple." Hesitation  is  weakness  and  folly;  and  the  policy  of  inaction  is 
criminal  when  the  demands  for  money  to  be  employed  in  productive 
industries  and  commercial  enterprises  are  so  urgent.  I  beg  to  remind 
my  party  friends  upon  this  floor  that  we  are  in  a  large  majority,  and 
that  the  people  will  hold  us  responsible  for  the  failure  to  do  something 
to  avert  threatened  evils. 

In  the  platform  upon  which  the  present  administration  came  into 
power  the  Republican  party  was  denounced  "for  having  failed  to  re- 
lieve the  people  from  crushing  war  taxes,"  and  the  distinct  pledge  was 
made  to  accomplish  that  result  and  "to  purify  the  administration  from 
corruption. ' '  1  warn  you  that  our  lingering  in  the  policies  and  methods 
which  characterized  the  conduct  and  management  of  public  affairs  by 
the  Republican  party  will  be  pursued  with  whips  of  scorpions.  Our 
people  have  become  accustomed  to  import  duties,  and  they  are  endured 
without  a  murmur,  while  on  the  other  hand  internal  taxation  produces 
friction,  and  is  regarded  with  feelings  of  hate  and  aversion. 

The  aggregate  collections  from  this  source  amounted,  in  round  num- 
bers during  the  last  tiscal  year,  to  $117,000,000,  which  is  less  by 
$8,000,000  than  the  surplus  for  the  same  period.  If  this  odious  system 
is  not  to  remain  permanently  as  a  part  of  our  fiscal  arrangements,  then 
the  time  has  arrived  when  we  can  and,  in  my  judgment,  should  move 
in  the  direction  of  its  repeal*.  In  assuming  this  position  I  place  myself 
in  harmony  with  the  settled  policy  of  the  Government  from  its  founda- 
tion and  in  accord  with  Democratic  platforms  since  the  war,  and  espe- 
cially with  those  of  our  party  in  the  States  of  Virginia,  Pennsylvania, 
New  Jersey,  Ohio,  North  Carolina,  and  West  Virginia. 

In  this  bill  material  modifications  and  changes  are  proposed  by  which 
the  system  will  be  relieved  of  many  of  its  irritating  and  oppressive 


6 

features,  but  the  financial  situation  will  not  be  improved  by  its  enact- 
ment. The  difficulties  and  embarrassments  by  which  we  are  surrounded 
will  still  remain  to  plague  us.  The  people  will  still  be  left  to  stagger 
under  unnecessary  burdens.  Tobacco  is  the  chief  money  crop  of  several 
of  the  great  States  of  the  Union,  and  the  continuance  of  the  tax  upon 
it  is  injurious  to  the  interests  of  their  people.  An  excuse  for  its  reten- 
tion can  not  be  found  iu  the  necessity  to  make  suitable  provision  for 
the  defense  of  the  country,  nor  is  it  required  for  the  preservation  of  the 
faith  of  the  nation  to  its  creditors  and  pensioners. 

If  time  permitted,  many  strong  and  urgent  reasons  for  its  immediate 
abolition  might  be  offered,  but  none  more  convincing  than  the  bare 
statement  of  the  fact  that  the  effects  of  the  laws  enacted  and  main- 
tained to  insure  its  collection  have  created  and  fostered  monopolies. 
They  have  operated  to  deprive  many  poor  and  deserving  citizens  of 
their  accustomed  employment  and  to  confer  special  favors  upon  the  rich. 
The  gentleman  from  Iowa  [Mr.  HEPBURN]  says,  "there  is  no  monopoly; 
any  man  can  secure  the  right  to  buy  and  sell  if  he  chooses  to."  He 
takes  a  very  narrow  view  of  the  subject,  and  exhibits  a  paucity  of 
knowledge  of  it  which  renders  his  opinion  of  little  value.  "Any  man 
can  secure  the  right  to  buy  and  sell,"  if  he  has  the  capital  with  which 
to  engage  in  the  business.  Let  me  place  by  the  side  of  this  declaration 
the  statement  of  the  wholesale  dealers  and  manufacturers  of  tobacco 
and  cigars  of  the  city  of  Baltimore,  which  is,  that — 


raciones  wnicn  are  striving  u>  monopolize  uie  ousmess,  ana  in  a  great  measure 
they  have  succeeded.  One  renowned  factory  of  smoking  tobacco,  not  in  Balti- 
more, turns  out  millions  of  pounds  a  year,  on  which  they  have  a  profit  of  20 
cents  a  pound,  or  about  75  per  cent,  on  cost  of  production.  This  is  accomplished 
through  the  internal-revenue  tax  law,  as  it  turns  the  business  into  a  sort  of  pat- 
ent. The  poor  consumer  buys  on  account  of  the  picture  on  the  package  and  the 


\i — so,  in  every  case,  lie  must  ouy  ms  pig  111  ine  uag,  sigui  unseen. 
Since  the  internal-revenue  tax  has  been  levied  the  tobacco  business  of  Balti- 
more has  constantly  decreased  in  importance.     Formerly  there  were  twenty  to 
thirty  smoking-tobacco  factories  located  in  Baltimore;  now  there  are  but  five 
or  six.    The  plug-tobacco  commission  business,  once  the  pride  notonly  of  Balti- 


These  are  the  utterances  of  men  having  knowledge  of  the  subject  of 
which  they  speak  derived  from  experience.  Similar  results  have  been 
produced  in  Virginia  and  other  States.  But  there  are  those  who  tell 
us  that  tobacco  is  a  luxury,  and  that  the  abolition  of  the  tax  upon  it 
is  not  to  be  thought  of  until  we  shall  have  conferred  "upon  the  wage- 
earners  of  the  United  States  the  boon  of  untaxed  clothing."  I  am  in 
favor  of  a  revision  of  the  tariff,  as  my  votes  here  show,  but  we  must  not 
lose  sight  of  the  question  at  issue,  which  is,  what  shall  be  the  sources 
of  revenue,  the  methods  of  taxation? 

In  speaking  upon  this  subject  Mr.  Madison  said  that  "the  system 
must  be  such  a  one  that,  while  it  secures  the  object  of  revenue,  it  shall 
not  be  oppressive.  Happy  it  is  for  us  that  such  a  system  is  within  our 
power,  for  I  apprehend  that  both  these  objects  may  be  obtained  from, 
an  impost  on  articles  imported  into  the  United  States."  And  in  har- 
mony with  the  views  thus  presented  by  that  great  statesman  are  the 
declarations  of  our  party  platform,  to  which  1  have  already  referred, 


"that  from  the  foundation  of  this  Government  taxes  collected  at  the 
custom-house  have  been  the  chief  source  of  Federal  revenue,  and  such 
they  must  continue  to  be." 

Tobacco  may  be  a  luxury;  call  it  so,  if  you  will;  but  I  make  the 
assertion,  without  fear  of  successful  contradiction,  that  in  taxing  it  you 
place  upon  the  shoulders  of  wage-earners  a  heavier  burden  than  is  im- 
posed by  the  taxation  of  any  other  article.  It  is  the  poor  man's  luxury; 
the  solace  of  his  toil.  It  is  in  general  use  by  the  laboring  classes,  and 
they  will  not  be  without  it  if  it  can  be  had.  During  our  civil  conflict 
the  soldiers  of  the  Union  were  always  found  ready  to  give  in  exchange 
for  it  clothing,  or  their  rations  of  coffee  and  sugar.  I  know  of  no 
greater  luxury  than  a  large  bank  account,  ample  tor  the  supply,  not 
only  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  but  sufficient  to  enable  its  possessor  in 
the  pursuit  of  pleasure  to  surround  himself  with  all  the  allurements 
which  his  fancy  may  suggest.  There  was  a  time  when  a  luxury  of  that 
kind  was  made  to  bear  a  portion  of  the  burdens  imposed  for  the  sup- 
port of  Government.  I  refer  to  the  tax  on  incomes,  which  was  removed, 
in  1870,  nearly  seventeen  years  ago.  We  did  not  hear  then  the  cry 
that  this  tax  should  remain  until  the  duties  on  certain  articles  of  gen- 
eral consumption  should  be  reduced.  This  income  tax  was  obnoxious 
because  inquisitorial,  and  I  beg  gentlemen  not  to  forget  that  that  pre- 
sents one  of  the  chief  points  of  objection  to  the  whole  system  of  in- 
ternal-revenue taxation, 

Blackstone,  in  his  Commentaries,  says: 

The  rigor  and  arbitrary  proceedings  of  excise  laws  seem  hardly  compatible 
with  the  temper  of  a  free  nation.  For  the  frauds  that  might  be  committed  in 
this  branch  of  the  revenue,  unless  a  strict  watch  is  kept,  make  it  necessary, 
wherever  it  is  established,  to  give  the  officers  the  power  of  entering  and  search- 
ing the  houses  of  such  as  deal  in  excisable  commodities,  at  any  hour  of  the  day, 
and.  in  many  cases,  of  the  night  likewise.  And  the  proceedings,  in  case  of  trans- 
gression, are  summary  and  Midden. 

******* 

However,  its  "  original  establishment  was  in  1643,  and  its  progress  was  gradual, 
both  sides  protesting  it  should  continue  no  longer  than  to  the  end  of  the  war, 
and  then  be  utterly  abolished.  *  *  *  But  from  its  first  origin  to  the  present 
time  its  very  name  has  been  odious  to  the  people  of  England."  It  has  been  kept 
up.  however,  to  supply  the  enormous  sums  necessary  to  carry  on  the  continental 
wars  of  Europe. 

The  dispute  arises  as  to  the  methods  by  which  a  sufficient  income  for 
the  requirements  of  the  Government  shall  be  obtained,  and  not  as  to 
whether  this  or  that  article  shall  be  taxed.  When  the  work  of  a  re- 
vision of  the  tariff  shut  1  have  been  entered  upon  I  shall  have  something 
to  say  upon  that  subject  also.  Its  discussion  would  be  out  of  place  in 
this  connection.  But  I  will  add  that  I  will  approach  its  consideration 
"in  a  spirit  of  fairness  to  all  interests,  and  with  the  purpose  not  to  in- 
jure any  domestic  industries,  but  rather  to  promote  their  healthy 
growth."  Both  parties  are  pledged  to  a  revision,  and  it  is  demanded 
both  as  a  measure  of  justice  to  consumers  and  for  the  promotion  of  the 
general  industrial  prosperity. 

But  believing  that  a  national  revenue  sufficient  for  the  requirementsof 
the  Government  economically  administered  can  be  obtained  from  an 
impost  on  articles  imported  into  the  United  States  and  that  internal 
taxes  are  unnecessary  and  a  prolific  source  of  discontent,  I  am  in  favor 
of  the  repeal  of  all  laws  authorizing  their  collection. 


APPENDIX. 

(Extract  from  the  CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD  of  March  4, 1887.) 
MODIFICATION   OF   INTERNAL-REVENUE  LAWS. 

Mr.  HENDERSON,  of  North  Carolina.     Mr.  Speaker,  I  submit  the 
resolution  I  send  to  the  desk. 
The  Clerk  read  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  the  rules  be  suspended  and  that  the  following  bill  be  passed : 
A  bill  to  modify  the  internal-revenue  system  of  legislation,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses. 

The  SPEAKER.     The  Clerk  will  report  the  bill. 
The  bill  was  read,  as  follows: 

A  bill  to  modify  the  internal-revenue  system  of  legislation,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  .House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of 
America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  proviso  contained  in  subdivision  6  of 
Bection  3244  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States,  which  reads  as  follows: 
"Provided,  That  nothing  in  this  section  shall  be  construed  to  exempt  from  a 
special  tax  any  farmer  or  planter  who,  by  peddling  or  otherwise,  sells  leaf-to- 
bacco at  retail  directly  to  consumers,  or  who  sells  or  assigns,  consigns,  trans- 
fers, or  disposes  of  to  persons  other  than  those  who  have  paid  a  special  tax  as 
leaf-dealers  or  manufacturers  of  tobacco,  snuff,  or  cigrars,  or  to  persons  pur- 
chasing leaf-tobacco  for  export,"  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  repealed. 

SEC.  2.  That  section  3361  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States,  and  all 
laws  and  parts  of  laws  which  impose  restrictions  upon  the  sale  of  leaf-tobacco 
by  the  producers  thereof,  or  by  guardians,  executors,  or  trustees  having:  the 
control  of  the  land  on  which  the  same  was  produced,  or  by  owners  of  land  who 
have  received  tobacco  as  rent  from  their  tenants,  and  all  laws  and  parts  of  laws 
imposing  penalties  therefor,  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby,  repealed;  and  none 
of  the  persons  or  classes  of  persons  above  mentioned  shall  be  deemed  dealers 
in  leaf-tobacco  or  retail  dealers  in  leaf-tobacco,  or  be  subject  to  any  special  OP 
other  tax  as  such. 

SEC.  3.  That  section  3255  of  the  Revised  Statutes  shall  be  amended  by  adding; 
at  the  end  of  said  section  the  following  : 

"The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  exempt  all  distilleries  which  mash  five 
bushels  of  grain  or  less  per  day  from  the  operations  of  the  provisions  of  this 
title  relating  to  the  manufacture  of  spirits,  except  as  to  the  payment  of  the  tax, 
which  said  tax  shall  be  levied  and  collected  on  the  capacity  of  said  distilleries; 
and  said  distilleries  shall  be  run  and  operated  without  storekeepers  or  'store- 
keepers and  gaugers.'  And  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  with  the 
approval  of  said  Secretary,  may  exempt  any  distillery  or  all  distilleries  which 
mash  over  five  and  not  more  than  twenty-five  bushels  of  grain  per  day  from 
the  operations  of  the  provisions  of  this  title  relating  to  the  manufacture  of  spirits, 
except  as  to  the  payment  of  the  tax,  which  said  tax  shall  be  assessed  and  col- 
lected upon  the  capacity  of  the  distillery  so  exempted,  as  hereinbefore  provided. 
And  the  said  Commissioner,  with  the  approval  of  said  Secretary,  may  estab- 
lish special  warehouses,  in  which  he  may  authorize  to  be  deposited  the  product 
of  any  number  of  said  distilleries  to  be  designated  by  him,  and  in  which  any 
distiller  operating  any  such  distillery  may  deposit  his  product,  which  when  so 
deposited  shall  be  subject  to  all  the  laws  and  regulations  as  to  bonds,  tax,  re- 
movals, and  otherwise  as  other  warehouses.  The  Commissioner  of  Internal 
Revenue,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  is  hereby  author- 
ized and  directed  to  make  such  rules  and  regulations  as  may  be  necessary  to 
carry  out  the  provisions  of  this  section  :  Provided,  That  such  regulations  shall 
be  adopted  as  will  require  that  all  the  spirits  manufactured  shall  be  subject  to 
the  payment  of  the  tax  as  required  by  law." 

SEC.  4.  That  section  3255  of  the  Revised.  Statutes  of  the  United  States  be  amend- 
ed by  striking  put  all  after  said  number  and  substituting  therefor  the  following: 

"  The  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  may  exempt  distillers  of  brandy  made  exclusively  from  apples, 
peaches,  grapes,  or  other  fruits  from  any  provision  of  this  title  relating  to  the 
manufacture  of  spirits,  except  as  to  the  tax  thereon,  when  in  his  judgment  it 
may  seem  expedient  to  do  so." 

SEC.  5.  That  the  provisions  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  relating  to  the  produc- 
tion of  fruit-brandy,  and  to  punish  frauds  connected  with  the  same,"  approved 
March  3,  1877,  be  extended  and  made  applicable  to  brandy  distilled  from  apple* 
or  peaches,  or  from  any  other  fruit  the  brandy  distilled  from  which  is  not  noir 
required,  or  hereafter  shall  not  be  required,  to  be  deposited  in  a  distillery  war*- 


9 

house:  Provided,  That  each  of  the  warehouses  established  under  said  act,  or 
•which  may  hereafter  be  established,  shall  be  in  charge  either  of  a  storekeeper 
or  a  storekeeper  and  gauger,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal 
Revenue. 

SEC.  6.  That  section  3332  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  and  the  supplement  thereto, 
shall  be  amended  so  that  said  section  shall  read  as  follows: 

"  When  a  judgment  of  forfeiture,  in  any  case  of  seizure,  is  recovered  against 
any  distillery  used  or  fit  for  use  in  the  production  of  distilled  spirits,  because  no 
bond  has  been  given,  or  against  any  distillery  used  or  fit  for  use  in  the  produc- 
tion of  spirits,  having  a  registered  producing  capacity  of  less  than  150  gallons  a 
day,  every  still,  doubler,  worm,  worm-tub,  mash-tub,  and  fermenting-tub therein 
shall  be  sold,  as  in  case  of  other  forfeited  property,  without  being  mutilated  or 
destroyed.  And  in  case  of  seizure  of  a  still,  doubler,  worm,  worm-tub,  ferment- 
ing-tub,  mash-tub,  or  other  distilling  apparatus  of  any  kind  whatsoever,  forany 
offense  involving  forfeiture  of  the  same,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  seizing  officer 
to  remove  the  same  from  the  place  where  seized  to  a  place  of  safe  storage;  and 
said  property  so  seized  shall  be  sold  as  provided  by  law,  but  without  being  mu- 
tilated or  destroyed." 

SEC.  7.  That  whenever  in  any  statute  denouncing  any  violation  of  the  internal- 
revenue  laws  as  a  crime  or  misdemeanor,  there  is  prescribed  in  such  statute  a 
minimum  punishment,  less  than  which  minimum  no  fine,  penalty,  imprison- 
ment, or  punishment  is  authorized  to  be  imposed;  every  such  minimum  punish- 
ment is  hereby  abolished  ;  und  the  court  or  judge  in  every  such  case  shall  have 
discretion  to  impose  any  fine,  penalty,  imprisonment,  or  punishment  not  exceed- 
ing the  limit  authorized  by  such  statute,  •whether  such  fine,  penalty,  imprison- 
ment, or  punishment  be  less  orgreater  than  the  said  minimum  so  prescribed. 

SEC.  8.  That  no  warrant,  in  any  case  under  the  internal-revenue  laws,  shall  be 
issued  upon  an  affidavit  making  charges  upon  information  and  belief,  unless 
such  affidavit  is  made  by  a  collector  or  deputy  collector  of  internal  revenue  or 
by  a  revenue  agent,  nor  unless  such  affidavit  is  first  approved  by  the  district  at- 
torney and  written  instructions  given  by  him  for  the  issuing  of  the  warrant; 
and  with  the  exception  aforesaid  every  such  warrant  shall  be  issued  upon  a 
sworn  complaint,  setting  forth  the  facts  constituting  the  offense  and  alleging 
them  to  be  within  the  personal  knowledge  of  the  affiant;  and  no  warrant  shall 
be  issued  upon  the  affidavit  of  a  person  other  than  such  collector,  deputy  col- 
lector, or  revenue  agent,  unless  the  commissioner  or  other  officer  having  juris- 
diction shall  indorse  upon  the  warrant  and  shall  enter  upon  his  docket  an  ex- 
press adjudication  that  the  examination  on  oath  of  the  affiant  shows  that  there 
is  probable  cause  forchar^iiiK  the  person  prosecuted  with  the  offense. 

SEC.  9.  That  whenever  it  shall  be  made  to  appear  to  the  United  States  court 
or  judge  having  jurisdiction  that  the  health  or  life  of  any  person  imprisoned  for 
any  offense,  in  a  county  jail  or  elsewhere,  for  a  period  of  orte  year  or  less,  is  en- 
dangered by  close  confinement,  the  said  court  or  judge  is  hereby  authorized  to 
make  such  order  and  provision  for  the  comfort  and  well-being  of  the  person  so 
imprisoned  as  shall  be  deemed  reasonable  and  proper. 

SEC.  10.  That  the  circuit  courts  of  the  United  States  and  the  district  courts  of 
the  Territories  are  authorized  to  remove  from  office  any  commissioner  appointed 
or  authorized  to  be  appointed  by  said  courts  under  sections  627  and  1983  of  the 
Revised  Statutes. 

SEC.  11.  That  all  clauses  of  section  3244  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  and  all  laws 
amendatory  thereof,  and  all  other  laws  which  impose  any  special  taxes  upon 
manufacturers  of  stills,  are  hereby  repealed. 

SEC.  12.  All  laws  in  conflict  with  this  act  are  hereby  repealed. 

SEC.  1.3.  This  act  shall  be  in  force  from  and  after  the  1st  day  of  April,  in  the 
year  1887. 

Mr.  WILKINS.     I  demand  a  second. 

The  SPEAKER.  The  gentleman  from  Ohio  demands  a  second,  and 
the  Chair  will  appoint  tellers. 

Mr.  HENDERSON,  of  North  Carolina.  I  ask  unanimous  consent 
that  a  second  be  considered  as  ordered. 

Mr.  WILKINS.  I  do  not  rise  to  oppose  this  bill,  but  simply  to  ask 
an  explanation  of  its  provisions. 

Mr.  HEl'BURN.     I  object  to  a  second  being  considered  as  ordered. 

The  Sl'EAKEK.     The  Chair  will  appoint  tellers. 

Mr.  HEPBURN  and  Mr.  HENDERSON,  of  North  Carolina,  were  ap- 
pointed tellers. 

The  House  divided;  and  the  tellers  reported — ayes  126,  noes  38, 

So  the  motion  was  seconded. 


10 

The  SPEAKER.  Under  the  rules  of  the  House  thirty  miuutes  are 
allowed  for  debate,  fifteen  minutes  in  support  of  and  fifteen  minutes  in 
opposition  to  the  motion.  The  Chair  will  recognize  the  gentleman 
from  North  Carolina  [Mr.  HENDERSON]  in  support  of  the  motion  and 
the  gentleman  from  Iowa  [Mr.  HEPBURN]  in  opposition  to  it. 

Mr.  HENDERSON,  of  North  Carolina.  Mr.  Speaker,  the  internal- 
revenue  taxes  are  war  taxes  and  ought  to  be  abolished.  Such  a  system 
of  taxation  could  never  have  been  imposed  upon  the  people  of  the 
United  States  in  a  time  of  peace.  The  system  is  tyrannical,  unjust, 
undemocratic,  and  unrepublican. 

This  Congress  has  lost  the  opportunity  of  repealing  any  portion  of 
these  taxes;  the  agitation  of  that  question  has  been  postponed  until  an- 
other Congress  shall  assemble.  But  the  whole  system  is  doomed  and  can 
not  stand  many  years  longer.  The  internal-revenue  laws  were  never  in- 
tended as  police  regulations  to  secure  the  peace,  good  order,  well-be- 
ing, and  advancement  of  society;  but  their  purpose  has  always  been  to 
obtain  money  due  as  taxes  from  the  people  to  the  Government.  The 
Government  does  not  now  need  the  money.  Its  Treasury  is  filled  to 
overflowing.  The  annual  surplus  is  estimated  to  be  $120,000,000. 
This  being  the  case,  no  necessity  can  possibly  exist  for  using  harsh, 
vindictive,  and  extreme  measures  for  the  collection  of  taxes. 

The  internal-revenue  system  has  been  a  prolific  source  of  frauds  and 
perjuries.  The  American  people — all  people  who  love  and  enjoy  lib- 
erty— have  a  great  horror  and  detestation  for  hired  spies  and  informers, 
who  make  a  business  of  telling  on  their  neighbors,  so  that  they  may 
obtain  from  the  Government  bribes  and  fees  or  money  in'devious  ways 
unknown  to  the  public,  or  may  gratify  feelings  of  envy,  hatred,  malice, 
and  revenge.  The  laws  should  not  tolerate  the  employment  by  the 
Government  of  such  shameless  add  treacherous  midnight  hirelings. 
If  the  courts  had  the  power  to  tax  all  such  informers  with  the  costs  of 
prosecutions,  and  to  imprison  them  if  the  costs  were  not  paid,  this  evil 
would  be  soon  abated.  The  judges  in  many  districts  have  adopted 
rules  of  court  to  prevent,  as  far  as  possible,  under  the  law,  oppression 
of  the  people  on  the  part  of  the  officers,  but  the  courts  can  not  prevent 
petty,  frivolous,  and  malicious  prosecutions,  unless  the  law  confers 
upon  them  the  power  of  taxing  costs  and  imprisoning  the  originators  of 
such  prosecutions,  or  unless  the  existing  law  shall  be  altered  in  many 
of  its  harshest  provisions. 

As  a  xule  the  circuit  courts  appoint  good  men  as  United  States  com- 
missioners, but  sometimes  the  desire  to  make  and  multiply  fees  induce 
some  of  these  commissioners  to  issue  warrants  unnecessarily  if  not  cor- 
ruptly in  hundreds  of  petty  cases.  And  there  are  numbers  of  such 
commissioners  in  office  whom  the  judges  believe  to  be  corrupt  men  ; 
and  yet  there  seems  to  be  no  effectual  or  speedy  way  to  have  them  re- 
moved from  office. 

To  give  this  House  and  the  country  an  idea  of  what  devices  are  re- 
sorted to  by  corrupt  or  covetous  commissioners  and  officials  to  make 
fees,  1  insert  here  a  letter  from  a  United  States  commissioner  to  a  deputy 
collector  of  internal  revenue: 

UNITED  STATES  INTERNAL  REVENUE, 

DEPUTY  COLLECTOR'S  OFFICE, 
SIXTH  DISTRICT  NORTH  CAROLINA, 

Henderson? file,  June  17,  1885. 

MTDEAK  SIB:  I  send  you  some  affidavits.  Please  sign  and  return  to  me  imme- 
diately, and  greatly  oblige  me.  I  have  seen  some  of  the  witnesses  in  the  cases. 
There  is  no  doubt  about  any  of  them.  1  will  not  issue  a  warrant  in  any  case  that 


11 

I  do  not  know  is  a  good  one.  Any  case  I  send  you  to  give  me  a  warrant  for  1 
will  always  be  sure  of  conviction.  I  was  at  Asheville  the  other  day,  but  did  not 
get  to  see  you. 

I  am,  as  ever,  your  friend, 

W.  G.  B.  MORRIS. 
WILLIAM  Yorxr;, 

Deputy  Collector,  Asheville,  2V.  C. 

The  following  is  the  form  of  the  affidavit  referred  to: 

UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA, 

Western  Dislric   of  Sorth  Carolina:  « 
This  day  personally  appeared  before  me ,  a  United  States  commis- 
sioner,   ,  and  makeih  oath  that  he  is  informed  and  believes  that 

Walker  ITathby  did  on  or  about  the  1st  day  of  June,  188-,  as  well  before  as 
since  this  date,  engage  in  tWe  business  of  illicit  distilling,  removing,  and  retailing 
epirituous  liquors  without  having  complied  with  the  law  of  the  United  States. 

,  Deponent. 

Sworn  to  before  me  this  —  day  of ,  188-. 

,  United  States  Commissioner. 

The  affidavit  is  to  be  signed  and  sworn  to  in  blank  iu  unlimited  num- 
bers by  the  deputy  collector,  and  the  commissioner  guarantees,  in  ad- 
vance of  a  knowledge  of  any  of  the  evidence,  without  having  examined 
a  witness,  and  without  having  heard  a  word  of  explanation  from  the 
defendant  or  his  counsel,  that  the  person  to  be  prosecuted  shall  be 
"surely  convicted. "  The  prisoner  is  to  be  convicted  first  and  tried  after- 
wards. I  have  heard  of  courts- martial  organized  to  convict.  United 
States  commissioners  who  act  in  the  manner  above  indicated  do  much 
worse.  They  guarantee  to  convict  before  the  persons  to  be  charged  with 
violations  of  the  law  are  arrested  or  even  known  or  identified.  What 
a  mockery  of  law,  of  liberty,  and  of  justice  ! 

I  send  to  the  Clerk's  desk  to  be  read  two  letters  showing  some  of  the 
evils  of  the  internal-revenue  laws  as  they  are  enforced  in  the  western 
district  of- North  Carolina: 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT,  FIRST  COMPTROLLER'S  OFFICE, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  November  29, 1886. 

SIR  :  Referring  you  to  rule  3  of  "  Rules  of  court  to  apply  in  revenue  cases," 
western  district  North  Carolina,  I  would  respectfully  ask  of  you  if  you  consider 
the  practice  now  followed  in  your  district  in  issuing  warrants  for  the  arrest  of 
violators  of  internal-revenue  laws  by  United  States  commissioners  to  be  in  com- 
pliance with  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  said  rule. 

That  your  attention  may  be  called  more  particularly  to  the  practice  referred 
to,  I  will  cite  the  matter  of  the  commissioner  whose  account  I  have  before  me, 
namely,  J.  W.  Shook,  United  States  commissioner,  Pigeon  Valley,  N.  C.  Com- 
missioner Shook  has  affixed  to  each  fee-bill  in  his  account  acopy  of  the  affidavit 
getting  forth  the  offense  with  which  the  accused  is  charged,  and  upon  which,  I 
presume,  warrant  was  issued.  The  said  affidavits  bear  the  following  indorse- 
ments, to  wit:  "After  examining  the  complaint,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  this 
case  should  be  prosecuted"  (signed  by  commissioner);  also,  "The  commis- 
sioner will  issue  a  warrant  upon  this  affidavit  if  in  his  opinion  there  is  reason- 
able grounds  to  believe  the  accused  guilty"  (signed  by  yourself  as  United  States 
attorney). 

As  you  are  well  aware,  there  is  in  the  Treasury  Department  a  bureau  whose 
especial  duty  it  is  to  see  that  the  laws  of  the  United  States  pertaining  to  the  in- 
ternal-revenue service  are  enforced,  and  to  see  that  vio  lalors  of  the  said  laws 
are  brought  before  the  proper  tribunal  for  trial.  The  court,  I  assume,  appreci- 
ating the  peculiar  functions  of  this  bureau  and  its  various  officials,  has  seen  fit 
to  promulgate  the  rule,  above  referred  to,  that  its  (the  courts)  officials  might 
not  trench  upon  duties  clearly  incumbent  upon  another  (an  executive)  branch 
of  the  Government  by  acting  as  detectives,  spying  out  violations  and  violators 
of  the  said  laws. 

Your  rights,  however,  as  a  representative  of  the  Department  of  Justice,  have, 
in  said  rule,  been  respected  in  that  you  are  therein  "authorized  to  institute 
prosecutions  under  the  internal-revenue  laws." 

By  this  proviso  I  understand  you,  and  you  alone  of  the  judicial  officers,  have 
the  authority  to  institute  such  prosecutions,  and  that  you  have  not  the  right  to 

jfticer,  however  much  you  may  value 


delegate  this  power  to  any  other  judicial  of 
"  his  opinion  "  or  discretion. 


12 

f  ou  would  appreciate  more  fully  the  necessity  for  a  strict  compliance  with 
an  enformeiit  of  this  rule,  I  have  no  doubt,  if  you  have  more  time  at  your 
disposal  to  devote  to  the  examination  of  accounts  rendered  against  the  Gov- 
ernment by  the  United  States  commissioners  and  deputy  marshals — thereby 
noticing  the  number  of  warrants  returned  ''not  found;  "  the  number  of  defend- 
ants "discharged  "  or  found  "not  guilty;  "  and  the  number,\vhich  having;  been 
held  for  court,  you  are  constrained  to  nolle  prosequi,  or  the  court,  they  pleading 
guilty,  to  impose  only  a  nominal  punishment.  In  either  of  these  events  the 
United  States  fails  to  be  benefited,  or  the  evil  sought  to  be  abated  in  any  way 
remedied. 

Heretofore  this  office  has  had  occasion,  in  several  instances,  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  district  attorneys  to  abuses  existing  in  their  several  districts,  and  ha* 
invariably  received  hearty  support  and  co-operation  in  suppressing  the  same. 

The  abuses  of  authority  by  court  officials,  to  which  your  attention  is  herein 
called,  are  of  a  most  grievous  nature ;  and,  though  not  criminal  in  their  bearing, 
mulct  the  Government  in  an  enormity  of  costs  for  prosecutions  that  are  on  their 
face  worthless. 

I  beg  to  suggest,  therefore,  that  it  is  in  your  power  to  materially  assist  thi» 
office  in  the  correction  of  flagrant  abuses.  I  mo  your  hands  has  been  intrusted 
the  attorneyship  of  a  district  that  has  been  a  great  burden  to  the  Government. 

Many  abuses  having  existed  therein,  I  feel  assured  that  your  especial  atten- 
tion needs  but  to  be  called  to  the  matter  to  elicit  from  you  a  most  hearty  co-op- 
eration. 

Very  respectfully,  M.  J.  DURHAM,  Comptroller. 

H.  C.  JONES,  Esq., 

United  Stales  Attorney,  Western  District  North  Carolina,  Charlotte,  N.  C. 

TREASUBY  DEPARTMENT,  FIRST  COMPTROLLER'S  OFFICE, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  Januai-y  25,  1887. 

SIB:  Replying  to  yours  of  the  13th  instant, also  of  the  17th,  I  inclose  you  a 
copy  of  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Attorney-General,  also  one  to  Hon.  THOMAS  D. 
JOHNSTON,  M.  C.,and  refer  you  to  them  as  expressing  the  view  and  holding  of 
this  office  on  the  matter  concerning  which  you  write. 

In  addition  I  would  cite  you  the  following  figures,  as  shown  by  vouchers  now 
on  file  in  the  Department,  and  your  official  report,  as  it  appears  in  abstract  in 
the  annual  report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  for  fiscal  year  1886, 
pages  142-146. 

First.  From  the  vouchers  filed  by  the  United  States  commissioners  it  appears 
that  fees  are  claimed  in  2.337  cases  in  which  warrants  issued  during  the  fiscal 
year  1886,  the  aggregate  of  fees  claimed  being  $22,101.69.  There  was  paid  by  the 
United  States  marshal  to  witnesses  on  orders  of  commissioners,  during  fiscal 
year,  $10,873.45.  If  to  this  amount  ($32,975.14)  be  added  the  ft»es  and  expenses 
of  the  United  States  marshal  for  serving  the  warrants,  expenses  endeavoring  to 
arrest,  attendance  before  commissioners,  &c.,  an  approximate  may  be  arrived  at 
as  to  the  cost  of  prosecutions  before  commissioners'  courts.  These  prosecu- 
tions, as  you  well  know,  are,  with  few  exceptions,  against  persons  charged 
•with  violations  of  the  internal-revenue  laws. 

Second.  From  the  abstract  of  your  official  report,  above  referred  to,  it  appears 
that  you  reported  587  criminal  suits  commenced  during  the  fiscal  year  1885-'86; 
none  of  these  cases  being  on  information  or  indictment  in  the  first  instance,  but 
all  against  persons  held  to  court  by  commissioners.  These  figures  would  indi- 
cate that  about  75  per  cent,  of  the  complaints  filed  before  commissioners  are  for 
some  reason  never  prosecuted  any  further.  Either  they  are  dismissed,  the  war- 
rants are  returned  "  not  found,"  or  some  disposition  is  made  of  the  case  indicat- 
ing that  it  is  too  trivial  to  be  prosecuted  further. 

Third.  From  the  abstract,  and  from  your  letter  of  the  13th  instant,  it  appears 
that  465  criminal  suits  were  terminated  during  the  fiscal  year  1886;  357  decided 
in  favor  of  the  United  States;  67  against  the  United  States;  and  41  were  dis- 
missed, abandoned,  or  consolidated.  Of  the  357  suits  decided  in  favor  of  the 
United  States,  fines  and  costs  were  paid  in  37;  the  amounts  paid  to  collectors 
(per  page  146,  Report  Commissioner  Internal  Revenue)  being,  fines,  $265;  costs, 
81,897.41.  In  163  of  these  357  cases  sentence  was  suspended.  (Page  145,  Report 
Commissioner  Internal  Revenue.) 

With  tliese  facts  before  me,  I  am  driven  to  the  necessity  of  concluding  that  a 
very  small  percent,  of  the  prosecutions  begun  before  the  commissioner  are  such 
as  would  be  instituted  were  the  cases  first  examined  into  by  yourself  or  an  offi- 
cial of  the  internal  revenue. 

To  the  end  that  these  trivial  prosecutions  may  be  abated  and  this  enormous 
drain  on  the  Treasury  (without  any  adequate  results)  may  be  stopped,  I  ask  that 
you  assist  me  in  the  rigid  enforcement  of  the  law  (Rule  3). 

Very  respectfully,  M.  J.  DURHAM,  Comptroller. 

H.  C.  JONES,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney,  Charlotte,  N.  C. 


13 

Judge  Durham,  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  is  entitled  to 
the  thanks  of  the  country  for  the  comniou-sense  view  he  has  taken  of 
the  matter  and  for  his  efforts  to  protect  the  citizen  from  oppression, 
tyranny,  and  injustice,  and  the  Treasury  from  paying  extravagant,  im- 
proper, and  unnecessary  costs  and  fees. 

Col.  Hamilton  C.  Jones,  the  district  attorney,  to  whom  these  letters 
are  addressed,  is  an  able  and  distinguished  lawyer  and  an  honorable 
gentleman.  He  is  an  excellent  officer  and  is  doing  what  he  can,  under 
the  existing  law,  to  put  a  stop  to  the  frivolous  and  petty  prosecutions 
referred  to  by  Judge  Durham.  But  there  can  be  no  certain  cure  for 
the  evils  of  the  internal-revenue  system  except  by  substantial  amend- 
ments of  the  internal-revenue  laws.  The  bill  under  consideration — 
although  it  does  not  go  far  enough — is  a  step  in  the  right  direction,  and 
should  pass  this  House  without  opposition  or  objection.  It  proposes 
such  beneficial  modifications  of  the  internal-revenue  system  as  will  re- 
lieve the  people  from  some  of  the  most  odious  and  irritating  features 
thereof.  Sections  7,  8,  9,  and  10  have  been  favorably  reported  to  this 
House  by  the  Judiciary  Committee,  and  the  whole  bill  has  received  the 
favorable  report  and  approval  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means. 

In  deference  to  that  committee  many  provisions  which  I  considered  im- 
portant have  been  eliminated  from  the  bill,  which  has  been  framed  with 
a  view  to  avoid  every  reasonable  objection  to  its  passage. 

It  is  expressly  directed  in  the  proviso  to  the  third  section  that  such 
regulations  shall  be  adopted  by  the  Treasury  Department  as  will  re- 
quire that  all  the  spirits  manufactured  shall  be  subject  to  the  payment 
of  the  tax  imposed  by  law,  so  that  the  members  of  this  House  who  are 
opposed  to  a  repeal  or  reduction  of  these  taxes  need  not  have  any  fears 
on  that  score.  A  few  clauses  of  the  bill  have  been  inserted  on  the  rec- 
ommendation of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue.  These  are: 

1.  That  portion  of  section  3  which  authorizes  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment to  establish  special  warehouses,  in  which  may  be  deposited  the 
product  of  any  number  of  distilleries,  to  be  designated  for  that  purpose. 

2.  The  fourth  section,  which  authorizes  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury to  extend  the  benefit  of  section  3255  of  the  Revised  Statutes  not 
only  to  those  who  distill  brandy  made  from  apples,  peaches,  and  grapes, 
but  also  to  distillers  of  brandy  made  from  any  "other  fruits." 

3.  Section  5,  which  extends  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  March  3, 
1877,  "  relating  to  the  production  of  fruit  brandy,"  &c.,  to  brandy  dis- 
tilled from  "any  fruit."     The  Commissioner  says  that  the  law,  as  it 
stands,  practically  excludes  all  fruit  from  distillation  except  apples, 
peaches,  and  grapes,  and  works  a  hardship  in  this  respect  which  is  en- 
tirely unnecessary  and  prevents  the  collection  of  a  tax  which  is  desired 
to  be  paid. 

Sections  9  and  10  have  been  inserted  at  the  suggestion  of  the  district 
judge  for  the  western  district  of  North  Carolina,  and  these  sections 
authorize  the  judges  to  make  reasonable  provision  for  the  comfort  of 
persons  imprisoned  in  a  county  jail  where  their  health  or  life  may  be 
endangered  by  close  confinement.  Such  power  is  conferred  upon  the 
courts  of  the  several  States,  and  the  United  States  ought  to  be  as  mer- 
ciful as  the  States.  Necessity  and  humanity  both  frequently  require 
the  exercise  of  such  power.  There  are  a  great  many  prisoners,  especially 
those  from  the  mountains,  who  break  down  under  close  confinement, 
and  their  health  is  thereby  seriously  impaired.  The  courts  should 
certainly  be  clothed  with  power  to  prevent  and  to  relieve  such  suffer- 
ing. These  two  sections  also  give  the  circuit  courts  express  power  to 


14 

remove  from  office  any  commissioner  appointed  by  said  courts.  The 
power  of  removal  should  be  ample  and  summary.  United  States  com- 
missioners are  usually  good  men,  but  the  power  of  a  bad  and  corrupt 
commissioner  is  incalculable. 

The  sections  of  the  bill  I  will  now  proceed  to  explain  are  the  ones 
which  propose  a  real  reform  and  modification  of  the  internal-revenue 
system.  Sections  1  and  2  remove  all  restrictions  upon  the  sale  of  leaf- 
tobacco  by  farmers,  and  permit  them  to  sell  to  any  persons,  whether 
licensed  dealers  or  not.  Under  the  existing  law  they  can  sell  to  none 
but  licensed  dealers.  This  is  a  great  hardship.  As  a  rule  the  tobacco 
farmers  are  men  of  limited  means;  they  raise  small  crops,  and  they 
lose  much  time  and  no  little  money  in  getting  their  crops  to  a  good 
and  lawful  market. 

The  nearest  licensed  dealer  may  have  his  place  of  business  30  or  40 
miles  away,  and  he  may  not  have  any  competition ;  so  that  after  reach- 
ing his  destination  the  farmer  frequently  finds  that  he  has  carried  his 
crop  to  a  bad  market.  His  profits  being  exhausted  by  his  trip  he  loses 
heart  and  does  not  seek  to  better  his  fortunes  by  going  to  another  mar- 
ket, but  returns  home  a  sadder  if  not  a  wiser  man,  and  certainly  with 
not  any  too  good  an  opinion  of  a  Government  which  imposes  such  bur- 
densome, embarrassing,  and  unjust  restrictions  upon  the  sale  of  his 
tobacco — to  say  nothing  of  the  tax — while  every  other  agricultural 
product  may  not  only  be  sold  without  any  restrictions,  but  is  free  from 
any  tax  whatever. 

There  is  no  justice  in  this  and  no  government  and  no  party  can  re- 
tain for  any  length  of  time  the  good  will  of  the  people  who  are  need- 
lessly compelled  to  submit  to  such  a  vexatious  and  burdensome  law. 
The  tobacco  tax  is  not  needed  and  should  be  abolished;  but  the  tax 
might  be  borne,  unnecessary  as  it  is,  if  the  irritating  and  odious  bur- 
dens imposed  by  the  laws  regulating  the  sale  of  the  unmanufactured 
article  were  removed. 

Section  3  abolishes  storekeepers  at  distilleries  which  mash  5  bush- 
els of  grain  or  less  per  day,  and  requires  the  tax  on  spirits  manufactured 
there  to  be  levied  and  collected  on  the  capacity  of  said  distilleries.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  and  the  records  show  it,  these  distilleries  have  never 
paid  a  greater  tax  than  upon  the  minimum  capacity  of  said  distilleries. 
The  storekeepers,  therefore,  have  never  been  of  any  real  service  to  the 
Government  in  collecting  its  revenues.  Section  6  prohibits  the  de- 
struction or  mutilation  of  stills;  and,  in  the  same  connection,  section 
11  repeals  the  special  taxes  upon  the  manufacturers  of  stills.  There 
are  no  features  of  the  internal-revenue  system  more  outrageous  and  de- 
testable than  the  wanton  ''cutting  up  "  or  mutilation  of  stills,  and 
pouring  the  poor  man's  "mash  "  upon  the  ground.  Such  property  is 
seized  and  destroyed  by  the  revenue  officers,  in  a  spirit  of  vindictive 
animosity,  without  apparent  authority  of  law,  under  rules  promulgated 
by  the  Treasury  Department.  And  there  has  never  been  any  necessity 
to  justify  such  harsh  measures.  No  good  reason  can  be  given  why  such 
wanton  and  summary  destruction  and  waste  of  property  should  not  be 
forbidden  for  the  future. 

Section  7  abolishes  what  are  known  as  minimum  punishments, 
and  gives  a  discretion  to  the  courts  to  impose  any  punishment  for  the 
violation  of  the  internal-revenue  laws  not  exceeding  the  limit  author- 
ized by  the  statute,  whether  such  punishment  be  less  or  greater  than 
the  minimum  mentioned  in  the  law.  There  are  many  cases  where  the 
judge  might  properly  impose  a  less  sentence  than  the  minimum  pun- 


15 

ishment  allowed  by  law,  and  would  do  so  if  he  had  the  power.  This 
section  is  intended  to  put  an  end  to  frivolous  and  malicious  prosecu- 
tions, and  to  authorize  the  judges  to  be  merciful  and  generous  as  well 
as  just  in  the  sentences  they  pass  upon  offenders,  according  to  the  cir- 
cumstances surrounding  each  individual  case.  There  is  a  harshness 
and  severity  about  the  internal-revenue  laws,  which  the  judiciary  have 
long  abhorred  aud  revolted  against.  In  proof  of  this,  I  ask  the  Clerk  to 
read  an  extract  from  an  opinion  delivered  by  Mr.  Justice  Miller,  in 
the  case  of  the  United  States  vs.  Ulrici.  decided  in  the  eastern  district 
of  Missouri,  in  the  year  1875,  and  published  in  3  Dillon,  532: 

It  is  very  well  understood,  both  by  the  courts  and  by  the  profession,  as  well 
as  by  every  one  interested  in  the  matter,  that  the  collection  of  the  internal-rev- 
enue tax  in  this  country  has  required  a  system  of  legislation  for  its  enforcement 
harsh  beyond  everything  known  in  our  history.  And  it  is  equally  well  under- 
stood that,  harsh  as  these  measures  are,  they  have  been  far  from  successful.  Not- 
withstanding the  heavy  penalties  denounced  against  crimes  which  go  to  de- 
fraud the  Government  of  its  revenue  from  internal  taxes,  and  notwithstanding 
the  minuteness  and  particularity  in  the  description  of  these  crimes,  and  not- 
withstanding all  the  aids  which  Congress  has  given  by  legislation  to  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  revenue  laws,  they  have  been  very  imperfectly  executed,  and  that 
the  Government  is  cheated  out  of  perhaps  one-half  of  its  revenue,  especially 
from  the  tax  on  whisky  and  tobacco. 

Section  8  is  the  remaining  provision  to  be  considered.  No  warrant 
is  allowed  to  be  issued  upon  an  affidavit  making  charges  upon  "in- 
formation and  belief"  alone,  unless  the  affidavit  is  made  by  a  collector 
or  deputy  collector  of  internal  revenue  or  by  a  revenue  agent;  and  be- 
fore the  warrant  is  issued  the  affidavit  must  be  approved  by  the  dis- 
trict attorney  and  written  instructions  given  by  him  for  the  issuing 
of  the  warrant. 

Every  other  warrant  must  be  issued  upon  a  sworn  complaint  setting 
forth  the  facts  constituting  the  offense  and  alleging  them  to  be  within 
the  personal  knowledge  of  the  affiant;  and  in  such  cases  the  United, 
States  commissioner  is  required  to  indorse  upon  the  warrant  and  to 
enter  upon  his  docket  an  adjudication  that  the  examination,  on  oath,  of 
the  affiant  shows  that  there  is  probable  cause  for  charging  the  person 
prosecuted  with  the  offense.  The  precautions  required  by  these  sec- 
tions are  not  only  necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  citizens  from 
vexatious,-  petty,  and  frivolous  prosecutions,  but  also  to  protect  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States  from  being  compelled  to  audit  and  pay 
improper  and  fraudulent  claims,  fees,  and  costs. 

The  country  is  demanding  a  reduction  of  taxation  and  a  reduction 
of  the  revenues.  Unnecessary  taxation  is  unjust  taxation;  and  to  ex- 
act from  the  people  taxes  beyond  the  requirements  of  the  Government 
economically  administered  is  robbery  under  the  forms  of  law.  I  hanre 
favored  in  this  body  a  reduction  and  revision  of  tariff  duties.  Both  the 
great  parties  are  equally  pledged  to  such  revision.  I  have  also  favored 
a  reduction  of  internal-revenue  taxation.  But  I  am  not  willing  to  re- 
fuse a  reduction  in  one  case  because  I  can  not  get  a  reduction  in  the 
other.  I  am  always  ready  to  vote  for  separate  propositions  looking 
towards  a  reduction  either  of  the  tariff  or  of  the  internal  revenue.  If 
I  can  not  have  all  the  reduction  I  want,  I  am  willing  to  take  such  as  I 
can  get.  An  annual  reduction  of  $12,000,000  on  the  tariff  and  of  $28,- 
000,000  on  internal  revenue  would  have  been  better  than  no  reduction 
of  tbe  revenues. 

Parties  and  factions  are  so  constituted  that  I  do  not  believe  it  possi- 
ble to  secure  a  reduction  of  an  equal  amount  of  taxation  from  the  tariff 
and  the  internal-revenues  at  the  same  time.  My  opinion  is,  and  I  be- 


10 

lieve  the  people  agree  with  me,  that  a  revision  of  the  tariff  and  of  the 
internal-revenue  laws  can  be  attained  from  time  to  time  by  reforming 
the  obvious  and  greater  grievances  of  the  two  systems;  and  no  man  and 
no  party  should  refuse  to  make  such  reforms  because  all  the  changes 
desired  have  not  been  attainable.  I  shall  be  glad  to  vote  to  "  untax 
the  clothing  of  sixty  mil  lions  of  people  "  at  every  opportunity  which  may 
be  afforded  me  I  shall  also  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to  relieve  these  same 
people  from  the  grievous  burdens  and  oppressions  of  the  internal-reve- 
nue system  of  taxation.  The  people  demand  relief  from  the  exactions 
and  oppressions  of  both  systems. 

Mr.  HATCH.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  simply  correct  one 
statement  in  his  remarks?  He  said  that  under  the  present  law  the 
grower  of  tobacco  could  only  sell  it  to  a  licensed  dealer.  I  will  call 
the  gentleman's  attention  to  the  liict  that  in  the  Forty-seventh  Congress 
an  amendment  to  a  bill  which  was  considered  in  the  House  went  over  to 
the  Senate  with  a  proviso  giving  the  farmer  the  privilege  of  selling  his 
tobacco  to  the  extent  of  $100  per  annum,  but  no  more. 

Mr.  HENDERSON,  of  North  Carolina.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  aware  of 
that.  But  the  provision  to  which  the  gentleman  refers  has  always 
been  inoperative  and  is  practically  a  dead  letter.  It  is  at  the  end  of 
section  2  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1883,  and  reads  as  follows: 

Provided,  That  farmers  and  producers  of  tobacco  may  sell,  at  the  place  of  pro- 
duction, tobacco  of  their  own  growth  and  raising  at  retail,  directly  to  consumers, 
to  an  amount  not  exceeding  $100  annually. 

Mr.  HATCH.  And  I  want  to  say  in  this  connection  the  paragraph 
in  this  bill  removing  all  restrictions  on  the  sale  of  leaf  tobacco  is  suffi- 
cient to  command  my  approval  and  my  active  and  earnest  support  for 
the  bill,  and  I  hope  every  gentleman  on  this  side  of  the  House  will 
vote  for  it  and  every  gentleman  on  the  other  side  also. 

Mr.  JOHNSTON,  of  Indiana.  On  that  one  point  I  will  agree  with 
the  gentleman,  and  if  you  will  strike  out  all  of  the  rest  of  the  bill  we 
will  all  join  yon  in  voting  for  it. 

Mr.  HENDERSON,  of  North  Carolina.  I  reserve  the  remainder  of 
my  time. 

Mr.  HEPBURN.  Mr.  Speaker,  in  my  opinion  this  is  much  more  im- 
portant than  the  time  chosen  for  its  consideration  would  seem  to  indi- 
cate. I  think  that  it  would  produce  very  marked  changes  in  the  reve- 
nue collections  of  the  Government,  and  the  bill  ought  to  be  entitled 
"a  bill  for  the  relief  of  moonshiners."  The  purpose  of  it  and  the 
main  purpose  in  my  judgment  is  to  remove  all  restrictions  upon'their 
illegal  traffic. 

Mr.  GROSVENOR.     Let  me  ask  the  gentleman  a  question. 

Mr.  HEPBURN.     Certainly. 

Mr.  GROSVENOR.  Ought  not  the  title  be  amended  still  further  by 
adding  "and  to  carry  out  the  pledges  of  the  Democratic  party  made 
in  1884  to  the  moonshiners  of  the  mountain  districts  of  the  South?" 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  HEPBURN.  Mr.  Speaker,  the  main  purpose  in  my  judgment 
of  the  promoters  of  this  bill  is  to  remove  the  watchful  eye  of  the  Gov- 
ernment from  the  smaller  distilleries  of  the  country.  He  would  be 
willing,  I  take  it,  the  gentleman  who  is  now  urging  the  passage  of  this 
bill,  to  strike  out  every  other  clause  if  he  could  only  secure  that  one 
that  removes  the  watchfulness  of  the  storekeeper  from  these  country 
distilleries,  the  four  hundred  of  them  that  are,  or  were  a  little  while 
ago,  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina  alone.  It  looks  to  me  as  if  that 


ought  not  to  be  done.  What  possible  protection  is  there  for  the  Gov- 
ernment in  the  collection  of  the  revenue  if  you  remove  the  watchful- 
ness of  the  storekeeper  ? 

As  to  the  provision  with  regard  to  leaf  tobacco.  I  do  not  know  that 
that  is  very  important;  although  there  ,-eems  lo  be  no  necessity  for  it. 
The  gentleman  from  North  Carolina  [Mr.  HKXDEKSOX]  tells  us  that 
it  is  to  permit  the  small  raiser  of  tobacco  to  dispose  of  his  crop  conven- 
iently. The  law  permits  him  now  to  sell  to  the  extent  of  one  hundred 
dollars'  worth. 

Mr.  BRADY.     In  a  year. 

Mr.  H  KP1JURN.  The  complaint  was  made  in  the  Forty -seventh  Cou- 
gres<  that  neighbors  could  not  exchange  a  single  roll  of  tobacco  with- 
out making  themselves  liable  to  the  penalties  of  the  law:  and  in  their 
interest  and  at  the  earnest  solicitation  of  gentlemen  representing  to- 
bacco growing  districts  the  modification  I  have  spoken  of  was  made; 
so  that  now  to  the  extent  of  one  hundred  dollars'  worth  there  is  no  re- 
straint on  them  as  to  the  sale  of  their  product. 

Mr.  SKINNER.     One  hundred  dollars  for  a  whole  year. 

M#   HEPBUKN.     Of  course,  for  a  year. 

Mr.  BRADY.  And  there  is  a  monopoly  now  on  the  purchase  of  to- 
bacco. 

Mr.  HEPBURN.  Oh,  we  heard  the  changes  rung  on  that  six  years 
ago  about  the  monopoly  there  was.  There  is  no  monopoly.  Any  man 
can  secure  the  right  to  buy  and  sell  if  he  chooses  to.  There  is  no  re- 
straint on  any  individual,  and  whatever  there  is  in  the  way  of  requir- 
ing these  sales  to  be  made  to  licensed  dealers  is  in  the  interest  of  the 
Government.  How  are  you  going  to  protect  the  interests  of  the  Gov- 
ernment or  collect  the  taxes  if  there  is  not  some  one  who  must  have 
knowledge  of  the  quantity  raised  ? 

Mr.  JOHNSTON,  of  North  Carolina.  Does  the  gentleman  from 
Iowa  not  know  that  this  tax  is  never  collected  till  the  tobacco  comes 
to  the  hands  of  the  manufacturer  and  is  manufactured? 

Mr.  HEPBURN.  That,  in  my  judgment,  ought  not  to  be  changed. 
I  believe  it  is  wise  to  leave  that  as  it  is. 

I  will  only  say  further  at  present  that  this  bill  in  its  entirety  has 
never  been  considered  by  any  committee.  It  is  a  sort  of  patchwork;  a 
little  taken  from  one  committee  and  a  little  from  another,  and  a  great 
deal  that  has  never  had  consideration  by  any  committee. 

I  yield  three  minutes  to  the  gentleman  from  New  Jersey  [Mr.  BUCH- 
ANAN]. 

Mr.  BUCHANAN.  lam  not  particularly  in  love  with  the  provisions 
of  our  internal-revenue  system  born  of  the  necessities  of  the  war.  I  am 
one  of  those  who  believe  that  when  the  exigency  is  passed  which  gave 
occasion  for  its  existence,  it  also  should  have  passed  away.  Our  inter- 
nal-revenue taxes  are  in  fact  the  only  remaining  war  taxes  that  we  have. 

As  regards  the  first  portion  of  the  bill,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  not  sub- 
ject to  any  serious  objection.  It  does  seem  to  me  that  when  a  farmer 
raisi  s  tobacco  he  should  be  allowed  to  dispose  of  it  without  any  tax 
being  imposed  on  that  particular  product.  And  had  the  bill  stopped 
at  that  point  I  should  have  given  my  voice  and  vote  heartily  in  favor 
of  it. 

But  unfortunately  the  bill  does  not  stop  at  that  point.     It  seeks  by 
indirection  to  repeal  the  internal-revenue  system  as  applied  to  the  prod- 
uct of  distilled  spirits.     I  say  by  indirection,  because,  while  it  leaves 
WISE 2 


18 

the  tax  on  the  distiller,  it  so  removes  the  safeguards  which  the  statute 
of  to-day  has  placed  around  the  production  of  that  article  as  to  practi- 
cally make  that  statute  valueless.  It  provides,  in  the  first  place,  that 
all  distilleries  mashing  five  bushels  and  less  per  day  would  be  exempt 
from  the  internal-revenue  tax.  I  ask  you  if  there  is  not  there  a  door 
wide  open  for  fraud.  It  also  provides  that  distilled  spirits  made  of  cer- 
tain articles  shall  be  exempt  from  taxation.  There  is  another  door 
wide  open  for  fraud.  In  certain  cases  it  removes  the  supervision  of 
the  Government  storekeeper.  That  opens  another  door  wide  for  fraud. 
And  so  you  go  on  through  the  bill,  and  you  find  that  those  provisions 
that  from  time  to  time  have  been  enacted,  recommended  by  the  Com- 
missioner of  Internal  Revenue  as  absolutely  necessary  to  the  due  and 
perfect  carrying  out  of  the  Law  taxing  distilled  spirits,  are  either  re- 
moved or  so  essentially  modified  as  to  be  of  no  earthly  use  whatever. 

Mr.  COWLES.     Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr.  BUCHANAN.  I  have  only  three  minutes.  The  gentleman 
can  make  his  speech  in  the  time  of  the  other  side.  If  I  had  ample 
time  I  would  yield  amply. 

The  SPEAKER.  The"  time  of  the  gentleman  from  New  Jersey  [Mr. 
BUCHANAN]  has  expired.  The  gentleman  from  Iowa  [Mr.  HEPBURN] 
has  seven  minutes  of  his  time  remaining. 

Mr.  HEPBURN.     I  reserve  that  time. 

The  SPEAKER.  To  whom  does  the  gentleman  from  North  Carolina 
[Mr.  HENDERSON] -yield? 

Mr.  HENDERSON,  of  North  Carolina.  I  yield  three  minutes  to  the 
gentleman  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  BEECKINRIDGE]. 

Mr.  BRECKINRIDGEj  of  Kentucky.  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  is  com- 
posed of  sections  all  of  which  except  one  have  been  in  substance  reported 
to  the  House  by  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  or  the  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary.  The  first  sections  of  the  bill  have  no  other  purpose 
than  to  widen  the  market  of  the  producer  of  leaf-tobacco  by  taking  off 
the  limitation  which  now  exists  and  which  prevents  him  from  selling 
any  larger  amount  than  $100  per  annum,  except  to  a  person  who  has 
taken  out  a  license  as  a  retail  dealer  in  leaf- tobacco,  or  to  a  manufact- 
urer, or  for  exportation.  So  that  the  first  part  of  this  bill  gives  to  the 
producer  of  tobacco,  to  his  executor  or  administrator,  if  he  dies  before 
the  crop  is  ready  for  sale,  or  to  the  guardian,  if  the  producer  be  a 
minor,  the  right  to  sell  his  leaf-tobacco  to  whomsoever  he  pleases.  The 
other  sections  of  the  bill  are  taken  in  ipaiasimis  i-crbis  from  a  bill  reported 
unanimously  by  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  (H.  R.  7894),  and  they 
provide  substantially  that  the  warrants  for  violations  of  the  internal- 
revenue  law  shall  beobtained  at  the  request  of  thecollectors  or  deputy 
collectors  of  internal  revenue. 

Mr.  REED.     Was  not  that  voted  down  by  the  House? 

Mr.  BRECKINRIDGE,  of  Kentucky.  That  has  never  been  voted 
down. 

Mr.  REED.     Or  a  similar  proposition  made  by  you? 

Mr.  BRECKINRIDGE,  of  Kentucky.  No.  The  bill  provides  that 
the  judge  of  the  court  in  which  a  prisoner  is  convicted  and  sentenced 
to  imprisonment  fora  period  of  less  than  one  year  shall,  upon  its  being 
shown  that  the  prisoner  is  in  bad  health,  provide  for  his  imprisonment; 
and  it  also  provides  that  the  courts  which  have  the  power  to  appoint 
commissioners  shall  have  power  to  remove  them. 

The  next  provision  of  the  bill  is  taken  from  House  bill  8327,  reported 
unanimously  by  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  and  is,  in  sub- 


19 

stance,  that  all  distilleries  which  mash  5  bushels  of  grain  per  day,  or 
ess,  shall  be  taxed  upon  their  capacity,  and  that  all  under  a  capacity 
of  25  bushels  per  day  may  be  so  taxed  in  the  discretion  of  the  Treas- 
ury Department.  The  object  is  this:  Brandy  distilleries  of  certain 
sizes  are  now  taxed  in  that  way,  and  it  is  supposed  that  the  change  will 
relieve  the  Government  of  some  live  hundred  officers  and  some  $300,- 
000  of  expenses.  It  is  to  be  done  under  regulations  made  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury 

The  SPEAKER.     The  time  of  the  gentleman  has  expired. 

Mr.  CABELL.     I  yield  the  gentleman  one  minute. 

Mr.  BRECKINRIDGE,  of  Kentucky.  I  am  much  obliged  to  the 
gentleman.  I  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  proposed  to  be  done  upon  the 
idea  that  it  will  not  only  not  diminish,  but  that  it  will  increase  the  inter- 
nal revenue,  because  it  will  introduce  into  the  system  the  plan  now 
adopted  exclusively  in  foreign  countries  by  which  the  taxation  is  based 
upon  the  capacity  of  the  still.  Whether  the  still  runs  or  not,  it  is 
taxed  upon  its  capacity.  It  can  make  so  much;  it  can  make  only  so 
much;  it  has  to  pay  on  that  capacity. 

The  fourth  provision  embraced  in  this  bill  is  that  the  stills  which  are 
now,  under  the  law,  destroyed  by  the  officers  who  seize  them,  shall  not 
be  destroyed  but  shall  be  sold  by  a  judgment  of  the  court.  That  is, 
that  the  person  who  is  held  to  be  an  offeader  shall,  before  his  property 
is  destroyed,  have  his  day  in  court.  That  is  the  whole  bill. 

The  SPEAKER.     The  time  of  the  gentleman  has  expired. 

Mr.  HENDERSON,  of  North  Carolina.  I  yield  one  minute  to  the 
gentleman  from  New  Jersey  [Mr.  McAnoo]. 

Mr.  McADOO.  Mr.  Speaker.  I  shall  heartily  support  this  measure; 
and  I  am  glad  that  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  appears  dis- 
posed to  support  the  bill  in  its  present  sha.pe,  for  I  regard  it  as  tanta- 
mount to  a  confession  that  the  system  of  collecting  internal-revenue 
taxes  is  iniquitous.  This  bill  will  remove  from  that  system  many  of 
the  most  odious  features  of  the  espionage  now  exercised  and  give  to  the 
growers  of  tobacco  and  the  small  distillers  of  the  country  the  freedom 
to  which  they  are  entitled  as  American  citizens. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  brings  before  the  House  and  the  country  the 
whole  question  as  to  the  wisdom  of  continuing  internal-revenue  war 
taxes  in  time  of  profound  peace.  Without  stopping  here  to  state  my 
views  as  to  these  taxes,  I  want  to  briefly  notice  the  most  specious  ob- 
jection made  to  their  removal.  Those  who  favor  a  substantial  measure 
of  free  trade  with  other  countries  and  those  who  are  protected  in  liquor 
and  tobacco  monopolies  immediately  cry  out  as  against  the  abolition 
of  these  taxes  that  we  should  tax  home-made  luxuries  instead  of 
foreign-made  necessities;  American  alcohol  instead  of  English  flannel, 
American  tobacco  in  place  of  Spanish  pig-iron.  This  cry  is  intention- 
ally unfair,  and  exposes  the  aims  of  those  who  give  vent  to  it  in  press 
and  forum.  Demand  ibr  the  repeal  of  the  internal  revenue  rests 
primarily  on  the  fact  that  the  whole  system  is  un-American  and 
utterly  unsuited  to  republican  government.  A  tax  law  that  has  to  be 
enforced  in  the  homes  of  our  own  people  at  the  muzzle  of  breech-load- 
ing rifles  can  not  be  defended  in  this  country.  It  is,  and  has  been  in 
all  our  history,  a  constant  source  of  irritation  and  annoyance.  No  law, 
even  in  England,  is  so  detested  as  the  internal-tax  system.  There,  in 
past  years,  open  revolt  and  bold  frauds  have  followed  its  execution. 
Therefore,  whence  this  rather  mildewed  and  somewhat  tiresome  cry  of 
opposition?  Principally,  as  I  have  said,  from  free-traders  and  mo- 


20 

nopolists.  The  free-traders  assume  to  fear  that  morals  will  suffer  if  the 
tax  is  taken  off  tobacco  and  whisky  by  the  cheapening  of  these  articles. 
In  this  they  differ  somewhat  from  the  great  manufacturers  of  these 
articles,  who,  presuming  that  the  cheapening  of  these  stimulants  is  the 
object  sought,  immediately  tell  us  that  taking  off  the  tax  will  not  benefit 
the  consumer  so  far  as  price  is  concerned.  It  would,  however,  improve 
the  quality  of  the  liquor  ordinarily  sold,  but  this,  I  suppose,  would  be 
a  great  crime  to  free-trade  morality.  Quite  singular,  too,  the  professed 
and  radical  temperance  people  oppose  the  tax,  because,  in  their  opinion, 
it  strengthens  the  traffic  in  stimulants.  Now,  leaving  out  the  question 
of  whether  these  stimulants  ar£  a  necessity  to  many  people,  or  whether 
taking  off  these  taxes  would  lessen  their  price  and  increase  their  use, 
we  can  not  get  away  from  the  main  objection  to  them,  which  is  that  in 
our  country  direct  or  internal  taxation  is  unpopular,  and  that  indirect 
custom-house  taxation  has  been,  is,  and  always  will  be  the  American 
system.  As  far  as  the  morale  of  the  question  is  concerned  I  am  certain 
no  more  tobacco  would  be  smoked  orliquordrank  than  is  now,  and  that 
a  great  many  millions  of  dollars  would  remain  with  the  people  and  a 
heavy  burden  and  oppression  be  removed  from  our  farmers  and  people 
generally. 

The  next  phase  of  the  objection  is  the  cry  to  take  the  tax  off  neces- 
saries. The  necessaries  here  meant  are  those  made  abroad.  We  success- 
fully manufacture  all  kinds  of  necessaries,  including  cloth  and  pig-iron, 
in  this  country,  but  there  is  no  internal  tax  upon  them.  They  are  free 
all  over  this  great  continent  called  the  United  States  of  America.  Our 
people  who  make  and  use  them  live  better  and  higher  and  in  an  entirely 
different  social  and  political  state  than  those  who  make  and  use  them 
in  Europe.  If  the  tariff  tax  represents  the  difference  in  cost  of  produc- 
tion between  the  two  countries  it  protects  American  labor.  If  below 
it  fails  to  protect;  if  above  it  cheats  labor  for  capital;  hence  the  neces- 
sity betimes  of  careful  revision. 

Take  the  tax  off  necessaries  of  foreign  make?  Let  us  see.  Cham- 
pagne is  a  luxury — except,  perhaps,  at  the  gorgeous  free-trade  dinners 
given  by  the  rich  importers  of  New  York,  Chicago,  and  Boston — and 
we  as  yet  make  little  of  it  in  this  country.  American  labor  has  little 
interest  in  its  taxation  or  freedom.  Now  a  coat  is  something  we  nirtn- 
ufacture  here  and  all  use.  Here  is  a  foreign-made  coat,  and,  by  the 
way,  not  a  very  neat-looking  product,  and  here  is  one  of  American 
manufacture.  Now,  you  propose  to  cheapen  the  foreign  coat  in  our 
home  market,  and  compel  the  American  to  compete  as  to  price,  and 
you  say  you  can  do  this  and  undersell  the  foreigner,  and  yet  pay  your 
American  workmen  the  highest  wages  in  the  world.  "  Go.  hie  thee  to 
a  nunnery,"  or  to  the  Patent  Office,  and  'take  out  letters  on  this  most 
extraordinary  discovery.  High  wages  and  low  prices?  Ninety-five 
per  cent,  ot  human  labor  in  the  coat,  and  you  propose  to  pay  for  it  the 
highest  price  in  the  world,  and  then  undersell  the  cheapest  price  given 
anywhere.  Millions  of  our  people  are  engaged  in  making  articles  of 
necessity.  The  protective  features  of  the  tariff  are  retained  because 
they  make  these  articles,  not  because  they  use  them. 

This  the  working  people  thoroughly  understand.  Iteration  of  catch 
words  in  the  press  and  oracular  utterances  of  selfish  foreign  agents  and 
speculative  theorists  do  not  mislead  them.  What  you  really  mean  to 
do  is  to  reduce  wages;  to  reduce  unfair  profits  I  am  always  ready,  but 
to  pull  down  labor,  and  finally,  with  ruined  manufactures,  leave  our- 
selves undefended  against  the  combinations  of  English  and  other 


i        21 

foreign  capitalists  I  am  opposed  now  and  forever.  This  is  not  a  polit- 
ical issue.  Men  in  both  political  parties  differ  on  this  question.  In 
some  States  both  parties  entirely  agree  from  local  and  business  causes. 
Many  of  the  leading  and  staunchest  Republican  newspapers  and  men 
in  the  Northwest  favor  free-trade.  Many  of  the  New  England  manu- 
facturers and  people,  jealous  of  the  tremendous  growth  of  Southern 
industries,  are  foolishly  for  free-trade.  But  the  American  people  taken 
as  a  whole  are  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  a  judiciously- levied  tariff 
as  the  sole  source  of  national  income.  Can  the  Democratic  party  now 
in  power  formulate  a  correct  measure  of  revenue  revision?  Undoubt- 
edly. It  has  no  hobbies.  It  is  a  broad,  unsectional  party.  The  ex- 
tremists, whether  protectionists  or  free-traders,  must  no  longer  con- 
sider this  question  personal  property,  for  purposes  of  political  agitation 
and  personal  aggrandizement,  but  must  give  way  to  conservative,  patri- 
otic men  who  are  neither  hobbyists  nor  lobbyists,  but  broad-minded 
American  men  in  hearty  sympathy  with  all  the  people  of  the  whole 
country. 

I  only  notice  now  this  threadbare,  factional  objection  to  honest  rev- 
enue reform.  When  this  question  comes  more  directly  before  the 
House,  as  it  will,  I  will  avail  myself  of  the  opportunity  to  consider  the 
whole  subject  from  what  to  me  is  a  loyal  American  and  common  sense 
view;  pausing  only  to  say  that  a  country  which  could  not  be  enticed  or 
deluded  into  the  arms  of  the  free- trade  Delilah  can  meet  the  open  bluster 
of  a  mock  Sampson  threatening  ruin  and  panic  unless  the  Treasury 
is  unloaded  in  the  interest  of  foreigners  and  their  American  agents. 
The  dropsical  Treasury  will  be  relieved  without  stampeding  the  people 
or  harming  the  humblest  farmer,  artisan,  or  laborer  in  our  country. 

In  connection  with  this  question,  I  will  put  before  the  House  and  the 
country  these  letters,  which  speak  for  themselves: 

SPEAKER'S  BOOM,  HOUSE  OP  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  January  31,  1887. 

GENTLEMEN:  In  accordance  with  the  understanding  between  us  yesterday 
afternoon,  I  have  to-day  consulted  with  the  Democratic  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Ways  and  Means  in  the  House  of  Representatives  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  whether  or  not  some  measure  for  the  reduction  of  taxation  can  be 
agreed  upon  which  will  receive  the  support  of  all  our  political  friends  in  the 
House,  and  I  am  directed  to  request  you  to  submit  at  your  earliest  convenience 
for  our  consideration  some  definite  proposition. 

There  is  pending  upon  the  Calendar  of  the  House  a  bill  (No.  9702)  introduced 
during  the  last  session  by  Mr.  RANDALL,  which  proposes  legislation  upon  the 
subjects  of  the  tarift'and  the  internal  revenue,  and  within  the  la't  few  days  we 
have  been  furnished  with  a  copy  of  a  bill  which  appears  to  be  intended  as  a  sub- 
stitute to  the  one  now  pending,  which  also  relates  to  both  the  subjects  men- 
tioned above.  Whether  you  desire  to  make  one  or  both  of  these  bills  or  some 
other  measure  the  basis  of  our  action  we  are  not  advised,  and  being  anxious 
to  make  every  effort  in  our  power  to  secure  harmony  and  concert  of  action  upon 
these  important  subjects,  we  respectfully  submit  the  foregoing. 
Yours,  respectfully, 

JOHN  G.  CARLISLE. 

Hon.  SAMUEL  J.  RANDALL,  Hon.  GEORGE  C.  CABELL,  and  others. 


MR.  RANDALL  WILLING. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  UNITED  STATES, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  February  1,  1887. 

DEAR  SIR:  Your  communication  of  January  31,  in  pursuance  of  a  previous 
understanding  respecting  an  effort  to  reach  a  concurrence  on  some  measure  for 
the  reduction  of  revenue,  is  now  received. 

The  bill  you  refer  to  as  a  modification  of  or  substitute  for  House  bill  9702  of 
last  session,  embracing  both  tariff  and  internal-revenue  tax  reductions,  la  the 
measure  which  the  friends  with  whom  we  are  acting  submit  for  consideration. 


22 

These  gentlemen  are  prepared  to  consider  in  a  friendly  spirit,  and  with  a  view 
of  uniting  the  party  on  a  revenue-reduction  measure,  any  modification  of  the 
proposed  bill  which  the  friends  of  other  measures  may  have  to  present. 
I  inclose  copy  of  bill  referred  to. 
Yours,  very  respectfully, 

SAMUEL  J.  RANDALL, 
GEORGE  C.  CABELL, 

For  selves  and  others, 
Hon.  JOHN  G.  CAHLISLE, 

Speaker  House  of  Representatives. 

SPEAKER'S  ROOM,  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  February  3, 1887. 

GENTLEMEN:  Your  favor  submitting  for  our  consideration  the  bill  recently 
prepared  as  a  modification  of  pur  substitute  for  House  bill  9702,  introduced 
by  Mr.  RANDALL  at  the  last  session  of  Congress,  was  received  by  me  late  in  the 
afternoon  day  before  yesterday,  and  was  at  once  submitted  to  the  gentlemen 
mentioned  in  my  first  communication. 

We  have  considered  the  measure  as  carefully  as  its  comprehensive  character 
and  the  limited  time  at  our  disposal  would  permit,  and  herewith  submit  it,  to- 
gether with  the  modifications  and  changes  which,  in  our  opinion,  are  necessary 
in  order  to  do  it  acceptably,  as  a  compromise  measure  to  those  who  desire  to 
secure  material  reductions  in  tariff  taxes. 

You  will  observe  that  we  propose  to  add  several  articles  to  the  free-list  and  to 
strike  out  of  the  bill  every  provision  which  increases  the  rajtes  of  duty  now  im- 
posed by  law  upon  imported  goods.  Theseincreasesarenumerousandinsome 
cases  very  material,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  memorandum  hereto  appended.  In 
our  opinion  the  existing  financial  condition  of  the  Government  and  the  people 
does  not  demand,  and  would  not  even  excuse,  an  increase  in  the  rates  of  taxa- 
tion upon  any  article  embraced  in  our  tariff  or  internal-revenue  laws,  and  we 
can  not,  therefore,  agree  to  support  any  measure  which  has  that  effect. 

We  propose  also  to  strike  out  of  the  bill  all  provisions  abolishing  the  internal- 
revenue  tax  on  manufactured  tobacco,  snuff,  and  cigars,  weiss  beer,  fruit  brandies, 
and  reducing  the  tax  on  distilled  spirits  trom  90  cents  per  gallon  to  60  cents,  mid 
the  provision  abolishing  the  tax  on  alcohol  for  use  in  the  artsaiid  manufactures. 
In  lieu  of  these  repeals  and  reductions  we  propose  to  rep"eal  all  statutes  and 
parts  of  statutes  imposing  restrictions  upon  the  sale  of  leaf  tobacco  by  planters 
and  farmers,  and  to  so  amend  the  internal-revenue  laws  as  to  dispense  with  the 
employment  of  gaugers  and  storekeepers  at  distilleries  which  mash  5  bushels 
of  grain  or  less  per  day,  and  to  permit  such  distilleries  to  pay  tax  only  upon  their 
surveyed  capacity. 

We  also  propose  to  so  amend  the  internal-revenue  laws  as  to  prevent  the  de- 
struction of  stills  and  other  apparatus  seized  for  alleged'violations  of  the  in- 
ternal-revenue laws,  and  so  as  to  prevent  the  issuing  of  any  warrant  for  alleged 
violation  of  those  laws  unless  the  affidavit  therefor  is  first  approved  by  the  dis- 
trict attorney  and  written  instructions  given  by  him  for  the  issuance  of  the 
warrant. 

In  lieu  of  the  administrative  part  of  the  bill  submitted  to  we  propose  to 
substitute  the  bill  introduced  by  Mr.  Hewitt,  as  finally  revised  and  corrected  at 
the  Treasury  Department  and  heretofore  agreed  upon  by  the  Committee  on 
Ways  and  Means,  but  not  yet  reported. 

We  find,  upon  examination,  that  the  substitute  which  we  recommend  relates 
alone  to  the  administrative  features  of  the  law,  while  that  part  of  the  measure 
submitted  to  you  by  us  increases  the  rates  of  taxation.  While  we  submit  the 
accompanying  modifications  of  the  bill  referred  to  us  in  the  sincere  hope  that  it 
will  meet  the  approval  and  secure  the  united  support  of  our  political  friends, 
yet  in  case  it  should  not  be  agreed  to  by  you  and  the  gentlemen  with  whom  you 
are  acting,  we  respectfully  submit  the  following  alternative  propositions : 

First.  If  the  reduction  of  internal-revenue  tax  upon  distilled  spirits  is  to  be 
made  a  condition  upon  which  you  and  the  gentlemen  acting  with  you  will  con- 
sent to  the  reduction  of  tariff  taxes,  then  we  shall  insist  that  the  rate  of  taxation 
shall  be  the  same  upon  all  kinds  of  distilled  spirits. 

Second.  If  the  repeal  of  the  internal-re  venue  tax  upon  manufactured  tobacco, 
snuff.and  cigars,  in  whole  or  in  part,  is  to  be  made  a  condition  upon  which  you 
and  tin-  gentlemen  with  whom  you  are  acting  will  be  willing  to  agree  to  a  re- 
duction of  tariff  taxation,  then  we  shall  insist  that  in  the  same  bill  an  equal 
amount  of  reduction  shall  be  made  in  the  revenue  derived  from  customs,  and 
that  this  reduction  shall  be  made  upon  such  articles  as  those  with  whom  we  are 
acting  shall  indicate. 

Third.  We  are  willing  to  submit  the  measure  which  you  have  referred  to  us 
to  a  caucus  of  our  political  friends  for  its  consideration,  all  parties  to  be  bound 
by  such  action  as  it  may  take  upon  the  subjects  to  which  this  bill  relates. 


23 

Fourth.  In  case  none  of  the  suggestions  hereinbefore  made  are  accepted  by 
you  and  the  gentlemen  with  whom  you  are  acting,  we  are  willing  at  any  time, 
upon  reasonable  notice,  to  support  a  motion  to  go  into  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union  for  the  consideration  of  House  bill  9702.  in- 
troduced by  Mr.  RANDALL  at  the  last  session  of  Congress  and  now  on  the 
Calendar. 

Very  respectfully, 

JOHN  G.  CARLISLE. 
Hon.  SAMUEL  J.  RANDALL,  Hon.  GEORGE  C.  CABELL,  and  others. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  WASHINGTON,  February  5. 

DEAR  SIR:  At  the  instance  of  many  Democratic  members  of  the  House,  we 
appeal  to  you  most  earnestly  to  recognize,  on  Monday  next,  some  Democrat  who 
will  move  to  suspend  the  rules  for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  House  an  oppor- 
tunity of  considering  the  quest  ion  of  t  lie  total  repeal  of  the  internal- re  venue  taxes 
on  tobacco.  Many  Republican  members, we  have  reason  to  believe,  are  anxious 
to  make  such  a  motion.  We  believe  the  country  is  ready  for  the  repeal  of  these 
taxes,  and  that  a  large  majority  of  the  House  will  so  vote  when  an  opportunity 
occurs.  For  a  Republican  to  make  the  motion  would  give  the  Republican  party 
all  the  credit  accruing  therefrom,  and  would  almost  certainly  cause  the  loss  to 
the  Democracy  of  not  less  than  two  Southern  States  at  the  general  election  in 
the  year  1888.  This  is  an  isolated  proposition,  and  we  believe  will  command 
more  votes  than  any  other  measure  pending  before  the  House  looking  to  ward 
a  reduction  in  taxation;  and  favorable  action  on  this  proposition  will  not  in- 
terfere with  other  efforts  that  are  being  made  to  reduce  the  burdens  of  the 
people. 

Yours,  respectfully,  GEORGE  D.  WISE. 

JOHN  S.  HENDERSON. 
SAMUEL  J.  RANDALL. 
Hon.  JOHN  G.  CARLISLE, 

Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

MR.  CARLISLE'S  REPLT. 
SPEAKER'S  ROOM,  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington,  February  7, 1887. 

GENTLEMEN:  Your  favor  of  the  5th  instant  requesting  me  to  recognize  some 
Democrat  "who  will  move  to  suspend  the  rules  for  the  purpose  of  giving  the 
House  an  opportunity  of  considering  the  question  of  the  total  repeal  of  the  in- 
ternal-revenue tax  on  tobacco,"  was  duly  received  and  has  been  carefully  con- 
sidered. 

A  week  ago,  in  compliance  with  the  request  made  by  you  and  other  gentle- 
men, I  consulted  fully  with  the  Democratic  mem bers  of  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means  for  the  purpose  of  endeavoring  to  formulate  some  measure  for  the 
reduction  of  taxation  which  would  meet  the  approval  of  our  political  friends, 
and  enable  us  to  accomplish  something  practical  in  that  direction  during  the 
present  session  of  Congress.  The  bill  which  you  then  submitted  for  their  con- 
sideration proposed  legislation  upon  both  branches  of  our  revenue  laws,  and  on 
the  3d  instant  it  was  returned  to  you  with  such  modifications  and  changes  as 
were  necessary  in  order  to  make  it  acceptable  to  the  gentlemen  to  whom  it  had 
been  submitted. 

In  order,  however,  that  our  efforts  to  secure  reduction  of  taxation  might 
not  fail  on  account  of  our  inability  to  agree  upon  a  measure  in  advance,  we  at 
the  same  time  submitted  certain  alternative  propositions,  some  one  or  more  of 
which  we  hoped  might  be  acceptable  to  you.  Among  other  things  we  proposed 
to  submit  the  entire  subject  to  a  caucus  of  our  political  friends,  with  the  under- 
standing that  all  parties  would  abide  by  the  results  of  its  action  ;  and  in  case 
that  course  was  not  satisfactory  to  you,  we  informed  you  that  we  would  at  any 
time,  upon  a  reasonable  notice,  support  a  motion  to  go  into  Committee  of  the 
Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union  for  the  purpose  of  considering  House  bill 
9702,  introduced  by  Mr.  RANDALL  at  the  last  session.  That  bill  relates  to  inter- 
nal revenue,  as  well  as  tariff  taxes,  and  proposes  to  repeal  the  entire  internal- 
revenue  tax  on  manufactured  tobacco,  snuff,  and  cigars.  We  have  received  no 
response  to  that  communication,  and  I  consider  that  it  would  not  be  proper, 
under  the  circumstances,  for  me  to  agree  to  a  course  of  action  which  would 
present  for  the  consideration  of  the  House  a  simple  proposition  for  the  repeal 
of  the  internal-revenue  tax  on  tobacco,  snuff,  and  cigars,  to  the  exclusion  of 
all  other  measures  for  the  reduction  of  taxation. 

Sincerely  hoping  that  some  plan  may  yet  be  devised  which  will  enable  the 
House  to  consider  the  whole  subject  of  revenue  reduction. 
I  am,  very  truly,  yours, 

J.  G.  CARLISLE. 

Hon.  GEORGE  D.  WISE,  Hon.  JOHN  S.  HENDEESON.  Hon.  SAMTTEL  J.  RANDALL. 


24 


\ 


WASHINGTON,  February  8, 1887. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  regret  exceedingly  that  you  could  not  see  your  way  clear  to 
give  recognition  011  yesterday  to  some  Democrat  to  enable  him  "  to  move  to 
suspend  the  rules  for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  House  an  opportunity  of  con- 
sidering the  question  of  the  total  repeal  of  the  internal-revenue  tax  on  tobacco." 
Your  refusal  to  give  this  recognition,  together  with  your  letter  of  the  7th  in- 
stant, deserves  more  than  a  passing  notice.  If  two-thirds  or  more  of  the  House 
are  in  favor  of  such  repeal  it  was  a  grave  re-ponsibility  for  you  to  oppose  suehs 
large  majority  of  the  Representatives  of  the  people.  Assuming,  however, for 
the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  the  "friends  of  th«  proposition  constitute  a  less 
number  than  two-thirds,  their  strength  is  certainly  such  that  they  ouulu  tohave 
been  permitted  to  test  the  senseof  the  House  upon  thequestion.  especially  .since 
the  country  is  watching  with  intense  interest  the  action  of  the  House  in  respect 
thereto, and  the  constituents  of  a  large  number  of  the  members  of  the  House 
have  been  urging  them  to  obtain.it"  possible,  a  consideration  of  this  subject. 

We  do  not  wish  to  be  misunderstood.  We  earnestly  desire  from  a  ]  arty 
standpoint  that  recognition  should  have  been  given  to  a  Democrat  to  make  the 
motion,  but  we  would  vote  cheerfully  for  the  proposition  whether  made  by  a 
Democrat  or  by  a  Republican. 

You  assume  in  your  letter  to  us  that  we  ignored  your  communication  of  the 
3d  instant,  and  had  deliberately  failed  to  make  a  response  thereto.  Our  friends 
did  not  have  an  opportunity  of  considering  that  communication  until  Friday 
evening,  the  4th  instant.  It  was  of  such  a  character  as  to  require  more  than  a 
formal  reply.  We  called  at  your  hotel  the  next  day,  Saturday,  but,  through  no 
fault  of  yours  or  ours,  we  did  not  succeed  in  obtaining  an  interview  until  the 
day  after. 

We  believed  that  the  friends  of  the  repeal  of  the  tobacco  tax  were  so  strong 
in  the  House  that  we  would  save  to  the  oppressed  tax-payers  of  this  country  an 
annual  reduction  of  taxation  to  the  extent  of  §28,000,000  if  the  motion  for  repeal 
could  be  made  in  the  House  on  Monday  of  this  week,  the  latest  day  when  such 
a  motion,  to  be  effective  under  the  rules,  would'be  in  order  during  the  Forty- 
ninth  Congress.  The  motion,  if  made  during  the  last  six  days  of  the  session, 
would  almost  certainly  be  too  late  to  secure  favorable  consideration  for  the 
question  in  the  Senate. 

We  did  not  anticipate  refusal  of  recognition  for  the  purpose  intended.  We 
understood  you  to  say  to  us  verbally  that  if  you  gave  to  any  one  of  our  friends 
the  desired  recognition,  fair  play  all  round  would  require  you  to  give  other 
Democrats  an  opportunity  to  make  a  like  motion  to  pass  some  distinct  propo- 
sition having  a  relation  to  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  duties.  To  this  we  assented. 
You  instanced  as  one  such  proposition  the  putting  of  salt  on  the  free-list.  We 
think  that  a  revision  of  the  tariff  and  of  the  internal-revenue  laws  can  be  at- 
tained from  time  to  time  by  reforming  the  obvious  and  greater  grievances  of 
the  two  systems,  and  that  we  should  not  refuse  to  make  sueh  reforms  because 
sweeping  changes  have  not  been  practicable. 

The  country  is  expecting  to  obtain  from  this  Congress  relief  from  the  grievous 
burdensof  taxation.  If  some  of  us  can  not  get  all  we  want  we  should  take  what 
we  can  get.  Our  single  proposition  for  the  repeal  of  the  tax  on  tobacco  was  not 
intended  and  can  not  fairly  be  construed  as  intending  to  exclude  from  the  con- 
sideration of  the  House  "all  other  measures  for  the  reduction  of  taxation."  We 
wished  to  obtain  consideration  for  that  proposition,  but  we  were  not  pressing 
for  the  reduction  of  the  internal-revenue  taxes  to  the  exclusion  of  other  meas- 
ures for  the  revision  and  reduction  of  the  tariff. 

A  Democratic  caucus  can  not  successfully  deal  with  "  the  whole  subject  of  rev- 
enue reduction"  at  this  late  s^age  of  the  session.  That  suggestion  comes  too 
late.  If  the  caucus  could  have  controlled  the  legislation  of  the  Forty-ninth 
Congress  from  the  beginning  the  country  might  have  been  much  better  off.  If 
the  House  was  considered  competent  to  deal  with  the  silver  question,  with  the 
pension  question,  and  with  the  oleomargarine  question,  free  from  the  d'ctation 
of  a  Democratic  caucus,  we  think  it  ought  to  be  competent  to  deal  -with  the  ques- 
tion of  a  reduction  of  taxation.  The  caucus  ought  not  now  to  be  invoked  to 
justify  a  policy  of  delay  and  non-action  on  this  subject. 

We  sincerely  hope  "some  plan  may  yet  be  devised  which  will  enable  the  House 
to  consider  the  whole  subject  of  revenue  reduction  "  and  revision  "  in  a  spirit  of 
fairness  to  all  interests,"  and  in  accordance  with  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  plat- 
form of  the  national  Democratic  party  adopted  at  the  convention  held  at  Chi- 
cago in  1884;  and  we  assure  you  that  we  are  ready  to  meet  any  of  our  Demo- 
cratic associates  who  are  prepared  to  treat  with  us  on  such  basis. 

JOHN  S.  HENDERSON. 
GEORGE  D.  WISE. 
SAM.  J.  RANDALL. 

Hon.  J.  G.  CARLISLE, 

Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 


25 

QESTLEMEN:  Your  communication  returning  substitute  for  House  bill  9702, 
which  was  submitted  for  the  consideration  of  yourself  and  those  holding 
similar  views  respecting  tariff  revision,  as  a  basis  of  compromise,  with  a  view  to 
the  passage  of  some  measure  to  reduce  the  revenues,  has  been  received,  accom- 
panied with  various  proposed  additions  and  modifications,  and,  alter  consulta- 
tion upon  the  matters  and  suggestions  therein  contained,  we  respectfully  sub- 
mit the  following  in  reply: 

The  gentlemen  present  at  our  recent  conference,  representing  States  South, 
West, and  North,  were  led  to  hope  that  the  way  hail  finally  been  opened  for  an 
agreement  on  a  measure  that  could  be  generally  supported  by  our  political 
friends,  and  we  sincerely  regret,  in  view  of  the  importance  of  the  adoption  by 
this  Congress  of  some  measure  that  would  materially  reduce  the  revenues  and 
pi-event  the  further  accumulation  of  a  Treasury  surplus,  that  differences  so  wide 
as  appear  in  your  communication  should  still  exist. 

It  was  hoped  that  a  basis  of  compromise  could  be  reached  without  requiring 
of  any  one  a  sacrifice  of  principle  or  of  convictions  entertained  on  the  subject 
of  tariff' and  internal  taxes.  To  do  this  it  is  evident  that  those  things  respecting 
which  radical  differences  exist  in  the  minds  of  men  must  be  excluded  from  a 
bill  intended  as  a  compromise  measure.  It  was  believed  there  could  be  found 
room  inside  of  these  limits  for  an  agreement  on  a  list  of  articles  to  be  remitted 
to  the  free-list  as  well  as  upon  many  on  which  the  tariff' could  be  reduced, 
^hereby  effecting  a  material  reduction  of  the  revenues  without  injuring  or  en- 
dangering any  important  industries  or  impairing  the  earnings  of  labor  in  this 
country.  It  is  believed  yet  that  such  a  measure  ought  to  be  agreed  upon  and 
carried"  through  the  House  at  this  session. 

As  to  the  items  in  the  proposed  bill  on  which  it  is  claimed  that  an  increase  in 
the  tariff' would  result,  we  have  to  say  that  the  apparent  increase  arises  in  most 
instances  from  a  change  from  ad  valorem  to  specitic  duties,  made  in  accordance 
with  recommendations  from  the  Treasury  Department.  The  principal  object 
in  making  duties  specific  where  they  are  now  ad  valorem  is  to  prevent  the  de- 
ception and  dishonesty  practiced  by  undervaluation  r  and  while,  in  fixing  what 
is  deemed  to  be  fair  specific  equivalents,  and  apparent  increase  may  arise,  it  is 
believed  to  be  apparent  only  and  not  real,  as  shown  in  the  following  references 
to  the  several  articles  referred  to  in  your  letter. 

However,  on  all  these  matters,  inasmuch  as  the  proposed  bill  is  not  intended 
to  be  a  revision  of  the  tariff,  but  a  bill  for  the  reduction  of  revenues  and  the  cor- 
rection of  certain  inequalitiesonly,  we  think  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in  agree- 
ing either  to  strike  out  of  the  bill  such  articles,  or  to  reduce  the  proposed  rates 
so  as  to  insure  no  increase  in  the  actual  duties  in  any  case.  A  careful  examina- 
tion of  the  list  referred  to  shows,  we  think,  that  except  as  to  a  very  few  articles 
you  are  in  error  in  the  statement  that  the  duty  is  increased. 

1.  Coal-tar  dyes.    The  proposed  rate  is  no  more  than  the  equivalent  of  the 
existing  rate  based  upon  actual  tests  of  importations  as  entered  at  the  custom- 
house.    As  it  is  well  understood  that  these  articles  are  generally  undervalued, 
the  rates  proposed  are  really  a  considerable  reduction  of  the  present  rate  if  the 
same  was  honestly  collected. 

2.  Insect  powder.     By  reference  to  the  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  you 
will  see  that  two  rates  of  duty  are  not  collected  on  this  article  (which  is  not 
enumerated  in  the  tariff)  namely,  10  per  cent,  and  20  per  cent.;  whereas  the  rate 
we  propose  is  substantially  the  equivalent  of  10  per  cent,  only,  and  is  therefore 
a  reduction. 

3.  Logwood  and  other  extracts.  These  include  logwood  now  paying  10  per 
cent,  and  sumac,  hemlock,  and'other  extracts  now  dutiable  at  20  per  cent.    The 
specific  rate  per  pound  proposed  in  the  bill  is  the  equivalent  of  about  14  per 
cent,  of  the  aggregate  entered  value  of  all  these  articles. 

4.  Antimony.  The  specific  rate  is  substantially  the  equivalent  of  the  existing 
rate. 

5.  Castile  soap.  AVhile  the  rate  proposed  according  to  the  values  reported  by 
the  Bureau  of  Statistics  is  about  1  per  cent,  only  above  existing  rate,  it  is  con- 
siderably less  than  that  rate  upon  the  article  when  correctly  appraised. 

6.  Horses,  cattle,  hogs,  and  sheep.    The  rates  proposed  on  horses,  cattle, and 
hogs  equal  12  per  cent.,  20  per  cent.,  and  5  per  cent,  respectively,  on  the  en- 
tered value  of  these  animals  free  and  dutiable,  and  are,  therefore,  less  than  the 
existing  rate  imposed  on  those  which  now  pay  duty.    The  rate  on  sheep  is  3 

8er  cent,  higher  than  that  now  imposed.    The  average  rates  proposed  on  all 
ve  animals  are  less  than  the  present  rate. 

It  is  understood,  however,  that  your  objection  ia  made  chiefly  against  our 
proposition  to  make  all  these  animals  dutiable;  and  yet  there  is  incorporated 
In  the  administrative  measure  you  propose  to  us  a  provision  limiting  the  exemp- 
tion on  such  animals  to  those  only  of  superior  race  or  blood  designed  to  im- 
prove the  stock  of  the  United  States.  This,  if  properly  enforced,  would  impose 
a  duty  on  nearly  all  the  animals  now  imported  free,  and  at  a  higher  rate  than 
we  propose. 


20 

7.  Beans  and  peas,  green  or  dried.     The  rate  proposed  is  equal  to  only  about 
14  per  cent,  of  the  entered  value,  while  these  articles  not  being  provided  for  by 
name,  it  is  a  question  of  dispute  whether  they  are  dutiable  at  20  percent,  ns  gar- 
den seeds,  or  at  10  per  cent,  as  vegetables,  both  rates  being  collected  at  the 
various  custom-houses.    In  any  event  the  rate  proposed  is  not  in  excess  of  10 
per  cent,  of  the  true  average  value  during  the  past  year. 

8.  Beans  and  peas  preserved.     The  specific  rate  proposed  is  less  than  the  exist- 
ing rate  of  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  honestly  collected. 

9.  Ginger  and  ginger  root,  and  citron  candied,  &c.    The  rate  proposed  on 
these  articles  is  considerably  less  than  the  existing  ad  valorem  rates,  even  at 
the  entered  value  of  the  merchandise. 

10.  Olive  oil.     With  respect  to  this  article  it  is  to  be  said  that  while  the  pro- 
posed rate  on  salad  oil  is  apparently  somewhat  higher  than  the  existing  rate, 
it  is  well  known  that  the  entered  value  does  not  represent  the  true  value  on 
account  of  under-invoicing  and  large  reduction  for  charges,  &c.;  so  that  the  rate 
we  propose  is  not  in  reality  above  25  per  cent.,  and1  is  believed  to  be  less.     At 
the  same  time  the  rate  we  propose  on  the  oil  for  manufacturing  purposes  is  only 
about  11  per  cent,  of  the  value  as  entered  last  year. 

11  Oranges,  lemons,  and  limes.  The  proposed  rate  on  oranges  in  whole  or 
half  boxes  is  the  same  as  at  present.  This  scale  of  rates  is,  however,  extended  so 
as  to  include  all  the  sized  packages  in  which  this  fruit  is  usually  imported,  with 
an  additional  rate  of  81.75  per  l,0t;0,  instead  of  81.60  in  one  case,  and  20  percent. 
in  another.  There  is  no  substantial  increase  in  the  duty,  but  the  rates  are  made 
uniform  so  as  to  prevent  evasions  now  so  common  and  vexatious.  The  rates 
proposed  on  lemons  are  a  considerable  reduction  from  existing  rates,  except  as 
to  those  imported  in  bulk,  which  it  is  well  known  are  brought  in  in  fraud  of  the 
revenue.  The  rate  on  limes  is  not  increased. 

12.  Grapes.    The  rate  proposed  is  not  more,  but  is  really  less  than  the  exist- 
ing rate,  if  fairly  collected  on  the  true  purchase  price  of  the  article. 

13.  Cherry  juice,  prune  juice,  &c.    The  rate  we  propose  on  this  merchandise 
is  for  the  purpose  of  excluding  the  importation.     Tliis  is  also  the  manifest  pur- 
pose of  the  provision  on  page  11  of  your  administrative  bill. 

14.  Cement.     The  rate  proposed  on  cement  is  based  on  the  value  of  the  article 
in  barrels  as  it  is  bought  and  sold,  and  on  that  basis  is  less  than  the  existing 
rate. 

15.  Fish  glue  and  isinglass.    On  this  article  the  rate  we  propose  is  less  by  2 
per  cent,  than  the  existing  rate  upon  the  entered  value,  as  shown  by  the  statis- 
tical reports. 

16.  Hamburg  edgings,  &c.    While  you  have  accepted  the  provision  for  silk 
and  leather  gloves  which  we  have  adopted  as  recommended  by  Assistant  Sec- 
retary Fairchild  you  reject  his  proposition  incorporated  in  our  bill  for  Hamburg 
edgings,  embroideries.  &c.,  the  rates  on  which,  as  stated  by  him  to  thechairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  are  now  greater  than  now  imposed  ;  but 
are,  according  to  the  statements  of  experts,  considerably  less. 

17.  Jute,  hackled.    It  can  not  be  contended  that  the  rate  proposed  on  hackled 
jute  is  an  increase,  when  it  is  proposed  at  the  same  time  to  make  raw  jute  free, 
and  to  impose  this  duty, equal  to  less  than  10  per  cent.,  upon  the  article  in  an  ad- 
vanced condition,  simply  for  the  protection  of  American  labor.     You  are  aware 
that  the  present  rate  on  raw  jute  is  1:0  per  cent. 

18.  Jute  yarns.     The  proposed  rate  of  1  cent  per  pound  on  jute  yarns  is  less 
than  the  existing  rate  of  35  per  cent.,  even  upon  the  entered  values  of  last  year, 
which  are  known  to  be  abnormally  low  and  less  than  the  foreign  market 
value. 

19.  Wool  of  class  3.    The  equivalents  of  the  existing  rates  of  2^  cents  and  5 
cents  upon  wool  of  class  3,  based  upon  the  entered  quantities  and  values  for  the 
last  fiscal  year,  and  26.76  per  cent,  and  29.14  per  cent,  respectively.     While  the 
equivalent  of  3  cents  per  pound  as  proposed  upon  the  aggregate  entered  value 
of  the  importations  is  28.66  per  cent.     The  question  whether  wool  entered  at  2i 
cents  is  not  properly  dutiable  at  5  cents  is  a  constant  subject  of  contention,  and 
many  advances  are  made  by  the  appraisers  to  the  higher  rate.     If  these  advances 
are  taken  into  consideration,  it  will  be  found  that  the  rate  now  collected  exceeds 
that  proposed. 

With  respect  to  taggers  iron,  steel,  wire  rods  under  No.  5  wire  gauge,  glucose, 
cod-liver  oil,  and  seal  oil  there  is  an  apparent  increase  of  rate  based  on  the  en- 
tered values.  We  assert,  however,  that  this  results  from  the  fact  that  the  mer- 
chandise is  enormously  undervalued  in  the  invoice,  a  fact  which  is  proven  as  to 
taggers  iron  and  wire  rods  by  a  com  parison  of  the  reported  values  of  these  arti- 
cles with  the  value  of  merchandise  of  the  same  general  class  subject  to  specific 
rates.  For  instance,  iron  and  steel  wire  rods  not  lighter  than  No.  5  pay  six- 
tenths  per  cent,  per  pound,  equal  to  3(5  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Steel  wire  rods 
lighter  than  No.  5,  which  cost  more  to  produce  and  are  more  valuable,  should 
pay  a  duty  as  proposed  of  eight-tenths  per  cent,  per  pound,  which  is  relatively 
a  no  higher  rate  than  that  imposed  on  the  coarser  quality.  These  wire  rods  are 


27 

now  nominally  dutiable  at  45  per  cent.,  and  the  specific  rate  provided  would  b« 
s  reduction  of  the  present  duty  honestly  collected. 

As  to  glucose,  cod-liver  oil  and  seal  oil,  duties  are  now  imposed  only  on  part 
of  the  value,  owing  to  large  reductions  for  packing,  <fcc.,  which  form  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  cost  of  the  merchandise.  If  duties  were  collected  on  the  full 
value  paid,  the  apparent  increase  of  rates  would  disappear. 

Bronze  powder, clay  pipes, cotton  and  woolen  clothing,  corsets  and  worsted 
cloths.  The  increased  rates  proposed  on  these  articles  are  for  the  purpose  of 
correcting  glaring  inequalities  in  the  present  law,  seriously  hurtful  to  domestic 
industries  engaged  in  their  production. 

As  to  bronze  powder,  the  present  duty  is  only  15  per  cent.,  while  the  duty  on 
the  copper  from  which  it  is  made  is  equal  to  about  47  per  cent.,  which  is  17  per 
cent,  more  than  the  ad  valorem  equivalent  of  the  specific  rate  proposed. 

The  rate  proposed  on  clay  pipes  is  considerably  less  than  that  imposed  on 
other  pipes  and  smokers'  articles.  This  is  an  unreasonable  discrimination. 
While  you  object  to  the  proposed  correction  of  this  inequality,  you  propose,  in 
the  administrative  bill  you  have  adopted,  to  extend  to  certain  manufacturers  of 
paper  (the  existing  rate  of  which  is  15  per  cent.),  used  as  smokers'  articles,  the 
high  rate  of  70  per  cent,  now  provided  for  other  pipes  and  smokers'  articles. 

As  to  worsted  cloths,  you  are  aware  of  the  ineqality  of  the  rates  imposed  by 
existing  law  as  between  such  manufactures  and  woolen  cloths.  Youare  doubt- 
less also  aware  of  the  injustice  to  the  domestic  manufacturers  of  levying  a  higher 
rate  of  duty  upon  the  wool  from  which  worsted  cloths  are  made  than  is  levied 
upon  that  same  wool  in  the  manufactured  article.  The  specific  rate  on  these 
cloths  valued  at  less  than  80  cents  per  pound  ranges  from  10  cents  to  24  cents  per 
pouml.  and  the  ad  valorem  rate  is  35  per  cent  ,the  latter  being  intended  to  cover 
the  difference  in  the  cost  of  labor  here  and  abtoad. 

Those  in  the  trade  inform  us  that  it  requires  upon  an  average  fully  3  pounds 
of  raw  wool  to  make  a  pound  of  cloth.  This  wool  is  subject  to  a  duty  of  10  cents 
per  pound,  and  there  is  therefore  exacted  from  the  domestic  manufacturer  30 
cents  per  pound  upon  his  raw  materials,  which  when  imported  in  the  form  of 
finished  cloth  is  subject  to  a  duty  of  only  10  to  24  cents  per  pound.  The  result 
has  been  the  gradual  destruction  of  the  worsted  manufacturing  industry  in  this 
country,  and  enormous  and  constantly  increasing  importations  of  worsted 
cloths. 

We  can  not  comprehend  the  process  of  reasoning  by  which  you  accept  the 
existing  rate  of  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem  as  a  proper  duty  upon  common  cotton 
laces,  insertings,  window  curtains,  damasks,  <fcc.,  used  by  the  masses,  and  in- 
sist upon  retaining  a  rate  of  10  per  cent,  lower  upon  the  fine  linen  laces  used  by 
the  wealthy,  and  upon  ladies'  corsets  of  all  qualities,  including  those  made  of 
silk. 

But,  we  repeat,  that  differences  can  be  adjusted  by  reducing  further  specific 
equivalents,  or  by  striking  them  out  of  the  bill  and  leaving  them  as  they  are  now. 

Second.  Certain  of  the  things  which  you  ask  to  be  placed  on  the  free-list,  as 
proposed  in  the  Morrison  bill,  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means 
at  the  last  session,  including  lumber  partly  worked,  all  wools,  unwashed,  washed, 
and  scoured,  fish,  salt.  &c.,  raise  at  once  those  vital  questions  which  have  here- 
tofore prevented  harmonious  action  on  the  tariff  question.  As  many  of  us  be- 
lieve that  such  a  step,  if  carried  to  its  logical  conclusion,  would  be  destructive 
of  very  many  of  our  most  important  agricultural  as  well  as  mechanical  indus- 
tries, and  in  this  matter,  representing  not  only  our  own  convictions  but  the  in- 
terests of  the  people  we  represent,  we  could  not,  of  course,  make  this  concession, 
and  we  did  not  expect  to  be  asked  to  make  it. 

The  importation  of  wool,  even  under  the  existing  rates  of  duties,  has  in- 
creased by  nearly  85.000,000  during  the  last  year  and  manufactures  of  wool  by 
ovi-r  is. 000,000,  showing  that  the  duty  on  these  articles  is  rather  below  than 
above  the  competing  line. 

As  to  fish,  we  think  it  an  unhappy  time,  since  this  has  now  become  an  inter- 
national question  between  Canada  and  the  United  States,  to  forestall  negotia- 
tions by  admitting  Canadian  fish  free  to  the  markets  of  the  United  States. 

With  ;i  view  to  saving  our  forests  we  have  proposed  to  admit  logs,  timber, 
and  lumber  unworked  free,  but  in  order  to  secure  to  labor  the  same  advantages 
in  the  lumber  industry  as  in  other  industries  we  have  proposed  to  retain  aduty 
on  lumber  when  advanced  to  any  stage  of  manufacture. 

Third.  With  respect  to  the  proposition  to  adopt  a  modification  of  the  Hewitt 
bill,  in  place  of  the  administrative  sections  of  the  bill  proposed  by  us,  it  may  be 
stat.-cl  that  the  latter  contaiiisall  of  the  administrative  sections  of  House  bill  7652 
(with  certain  verbal  modifications)  favorably  reported  by  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  at  the  first  session  of  the  present  Congress,  except  the  section  extend- 
ing the  warehousing  period,  Ac., which  we  did  not  adopt.  Certain  of  the  pro- 
visions since  recommended  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  have  been  added 
also,  together  with  certain  additional  provisions  which  we  have  decreed  need- 
ful and  think  ought  to  be  adopted. 


28 

You  say  that  the  substitute  which  you  recommend  relates  alone  to  the  admin- 
istrative features  of  the  law,  while  that  part  of  the  measure  submitted  by  us  in- 
creases the  rates  of  taxation.  A  careful  comparison  and  analysis  of  the  two 
measures  does  not,  we  think,  sustain  this  statement.  On  the  contrary,  the  ad- 
ministrative measures  proposed  by  us  make  certain  distinct  reductions  of  rates 
which  the  bill  presented  by  you  does  not,  and  in  some  instances  it  increases  the 
rates. 

In  section  12,  page  3,  of  your  measure  is  a  provision  including  certain  coal-tar 
pro  luets,  namely  :  toludine,  xylidine.  &c..  at  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  which  ar- 
ticles are  included  on  the  free-list  of  our  bill. 

On  page  6,  in  tlie  same  section,  there  sire  certain  provisions  for  earthenware, 
tiles, and  small  glass  mirrors  by  which  the  present  rates  are  retained  on  the  ar- 
ticles mentioned,  whereas  on  pages  ~~>.  -ii.  and  2S  of  our  bill  there  are  provisions 
of  the  same  substantial  purport,  but  reducing  the  rates  of  duty  by  5  per  eent.  on 
the  several  groups  of  articles,  which  effects  a  reduction  in  the  revenue  approxi- 
mating §250,000. 

In  the  same  section  (page  ?)  of  your  bill  there  is  a  provision  modifying  tariff 
paragraph  210  of  the  metal  schedule  by  which  the  pivscnl  rate  of  15  per  cent,  on 
manufaetures  of  various  metals  is  retained,  while  on  page  2<J  of  our  bill  there  is 
a  provision  mollifying  the  same  paragraph  in  important  and  needful  particu- 
lars, and  reducing  the  rate  on  the  same  manufaetures  5  per  cent,  ad  valorem, 
thus  decreasing  the  revenue  by  nearly  ?230,000  annually. 

In  the  proposed  modification  of  tariff,  para  ;raph  2i)9  of  your  bill,  relating  to 
starch,  you  retain  existing  rates  of  2  cents  and  2i  cents  per  pound  on  the  articles, 
while  on  page  9  of  our  bill  there  is  a  provision,  which  yon  accept,  reducing  the 
rate  on  the  different  kinds  of  starch  to  1  cent  and  2  cents  per  pound  respectively. 
You  also  propose  in  the  same  provision  to  include  as  dutiable  as  starch  "  all  sub- 
stances produced  from  the  Jatropha  manihot."  Is  it  not  obvious  that  it  would 
be  impossible  for  the  custom  officers  to  determine  whether  an  article  in  the 
form  of  starch  is  produced  from  the  Jatropha  inanihot  or  from  some  other  source  ? 
May  not  the  article  on  the  free-list  commercially  known  aa  "Tapioca"  be  in 
fact  the  product  of  the  root  of  the  plant  referred  to? 

On  page  13  of  your  bill  there  is  a  provision  modifying  paragraph  790,  which 
limits  the  free  admission  of  "  soap  stock  "  to  such  as  is  lit  only  for  use  as  such. 
On  pages  3'J  and  40  of  our  bill  there  is  a  provision  on  the  same  subject  which  en- 
larges the  exception  to  "grease  and  oils"  not  only  used  in  soap  making, but 
also  to  grease  and  oils  used  in  wire  drawing  and  forstuffing  and  dressing  leather, 
which  will  effect  a  considerable  reduction  in  taxation  and  revenue. 

On  pages  3?  and  31  of  our  measure  there  is  a  provision  relating  to  cotton 
goods,  the  effect  of  which  would  be  to  reduce  the  rate  of  duty  on  certain  cotton 
cloths  from  the  equivalent  of  from  75  per  cent,  to  200  per  cent,  ad  valorem  to  35 
per  cent.,  which  provision  is  not  found  in  your  measure. 

On  page  31  of  our  bill  there  is  a  provision  modifying  paragraph  336,  whereby 
the  rate  of  duty  on  certain  manufaetures  of  flax,  not  specially  enumerated,  is 
reduced  from  40  per  cent,  to  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

The  only  provisions  embraced  in  onradministrative  sections,  not  hereinbefore 
referred  to,  by  which  rates  are  advanced  at  all,  which  are  not  identical  with  pro- 
visions in  your  bill, are  those  relating  to  "brittannia  ware,"  &c.  (page 30), and 
to  sugar  drainings  and  sweepings  (page  31),  which  are  unimportant  and  will 
have  no  material  effect  upon  jthe  revenues. 

The  most  important  difference  between  the  administrative  features  of  the  two 
measures  is  the  section  relating  to  coverings  (section  4  of  our  bill),  which, 
although  embodied  in  the  bill  favorably  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means  at  the  last  session,  is  now  omitted  from  your  bill.  This  section  pro- 
vides for  the  correction  of  the  unfortunate  phraseology  of  seel  ion  7  of  the  tariff 
act  of  March  3,  1883.  As  is  well  known,  that  section  was  intended  to  exempt 
from  duty  charges  for  the  packing-cases  used  for  the  transportation  oi  merchan- 
dise, but  under  the  rulings  and  opinions  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  Attor- 
ney-General a  large  part  of  the  value  of  the  merchandise  as  purchased  by  the 
importer,  or  as  shipped  by  the  consignor,  is  held  to  be  non-dutiable  under  that 
section. 

The  correction  of  this  legislative  blunder  was  regarded  by  the  Treasury  De- 
partment as  the  most  important  and  essential  feature  of  the  bill  proposed  by  Mr. 
Hewitt,  and  the  section  adopted  in  the  bill  H.  H.  7<>52,  before  mentioned,  was  the 
result  of  correspondence  between  Mr.  Hewitt  and  the  distinguished  Assistant 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Hon.  C.  S.  Fairchild,  then  Acting  Secretary,  and  who 
has  the  immediate  direction  of  custom  matters.  In  his  letter  to  Mr.  Hewitt  dis- 
cussing the  various'administrativesections  of  the  "  Hewitt  bill,"  Mr.  Fairchild 
says,  with  reference  to  the  section  under  consideration  : 

"  Section  4.  This  section  I  regard  as  the  most  important  of  the  administrative 
features  of  the  bill  so  far  as  relates  to  the  revenue,  and  as  essential  to  the  fair 
and  orderly  administration  of  the  tariff!  Its  purpose  is  to  secure  the  assess- 
ment of  duties  upon  substantially  the  same  basis  as  it  is  believed  was  intended 


29 

to  he  established  by  the  section  that  it  repeals  and  upon  which  the  Government 
had  levied  duties  prior  to  the  dec'sion  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Obertauffer 
case.  I  believe  that  if  it  shall  become  a  law  it  will  accomplish  this  result,  and 
will  afford  a  just,  safe,  and  uniform  rule  for  the  assessment  of  duties  on  all 
'packed'  merchandise,  save  vast  trouble  to  all  concerned,  prevent  litigation, 
and  secure  the  revenue  from  immense  loss  consequent  upon  the  decision  men- 
tioned." 

Jn  his  late  report  on  the  "collection  of  duties,"  Secretary  Manning  com- 
mends to  Congress  a  consideration  of  the  suggestions  made  in  reports  to  him 
on  this  subject  by  Assistant  Secretary  Fairchikl  and  other  officers.  These  re- 
ports are  appended  to  the  Secretary's  report,  and  contain  such  facts  with  regard 
to  the  practical  operation  of  the  law  as  it  is  now  construed  as  to  demand  an  im- 
mediate remedy  by  Congress. 

Mr.  Fairchild  in  his  report,  after  citing  the  many  difficulties  growing  out  of 
the  interpretation  of  the  seventh  section  of  the  tariff  act  of  1*83,  says: 

"  But  the  law  requiring  as  it  now  does  the  appraising  officers  to  find  the  mar- 
ket value  of  articles  at  the  time  and  place  of  exportation,  and  at  the  same  time 
directing  them  to  find  such  value  in  a  condition  in  which  the  articles  are  not 
sold  at  that  time  and  place,  or  at  any  time  or  place,  presents  difficulties  which 
call  for  an  amendment  of  the  law.  At  present  every  advantage  is  offered  to  the 
unscrupulous  and  every  disadvantage  to  the  conscientious  importer." 

The  testimony  of  the  other  officers  referred  to  by  Secretary  Manning  is  to  the 
same  etl'ect.  and  shows  the  impracticability  of  administering  the  tariff  uniformly 
and  equitably  under  the  existing  law, and  such  is  the  view  held  by  the  chief 
customs  officers  and  experts  at  the  principal  ports. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has  repeatedly,  urgently,  and  recently  recom- 
mended to  Congress  the  adoption  of  specific  rates  of  duty  whenever  practicable, 
not  only  on  account  of  the  troubles  growing  out  of  the  interpretation  of  the 
sections  of  the  law  above  referred  to,  but  generally  in  the  interest  alike  of  or- 
derly administration  and  of  honest  traders. 

In  this  view  \ve  have,  in  our  proposed  bill,  changed  the  rates  on  a  number  of 
articles  from  ad  valorem  to  specific.  This  has  been  done  after  the  most  careful 
and  painstaking  inquiry,  the  articles  being  among  those  particularly  affected 
by  the  operation  of  the  section  in  question.  The  adoption  of  these  rates  would 
remove  the  articles  from  the  operation  of  that  section,  so  that  as  to  them  the 
enact  ment  of  the  proposed  remedial  section  would  in  no  sense  affect  the  rate  of 
taxation. 

It  is  believed,  therefore,  that  upon  careful  comparison  of  the  two  bills  the  dif- 
ferences ought  not  to  prevent  an  agreement  on  the  administrative  features  of 
our  bill. 

4.  In  striking  from  the  proposed  compromise  measure  the  repeal  of  the 
tobiccotax.  the  tax  on  fruit  brandies,  alcohol  used  in  the  arts,  Weiss  beer,  and 
tifre  alternative  proposition  to  reduce  the  tax  on  all  distilled  spirits  from  90  cents 
to  GO  cents  a  gallon,  you  eliminate  from  the  bill  all  propositions  to  reduce  in- 
ternal-revenue taxes,  except  the  retail  license  proposition,  and  this  you  do  not 
in  terms  agree  to.  The  repeal  of  the  tobacco  tax,  now  so  urgently  demanded, 
would  take  off,  in  round  numbers,  $28,000,000;  the  fruit-brandy  tax — on  the  basis 
of  the  receipts  of  last  year — 81.4(0000.  Free  alcohol  in  the  arts  will  also  mate- 
rially reduce  the  receipts  from  this  source.  If  the  proposition  to  reduce  the  tax 
on  all  distilled  spirits  to  60  cents  be  adopted,  a  reduction  of  revenues  from  this 
source  alone,  if  proportionate  to  the  reduction  of  the  tax,  would  amount  to  over 
$20,<X  0,000. 

In  1 'en  of  these  provisions  in  our  bill  you  propose  to  repeal  all  statutes  im- 
posing restrictions  upon  the  sale  of  leaf-tobacco  by  farmers,  and  to  modify  the 
laws  relating  to  storekeepers  and  gangers  at  small  distilleries,  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  stills;  also  to  modify  the  administrative  feature*  of  the  law  relating  to 
the  issue  of  warrants, -&c.  While  to  all  these  proposed  modifications  of  the 
present  law  we  readily  assent,  we  do  not  see  in  them  alone  how  the  revenue 
Is  to  be  reduced. 

Our  object,  in  the  matter  of  internal  taxes,  is  twofold  ;  first,  to  reduce  the  reve- 
nues, and.  second,  to  relieve  the  people  of  vexatious  and  inquisitorial  methods 
of  taxation,  and  to  do  this  without  offering  temptations  to  frauds  or  to  evasions 
of  the  law.  Furthermore,  in  proposing  the  abolition  or  reduction  of  internal- 
revenue  taxes,  we  believe  we  are  acting  in  harmony  with  the  principles  and 
declarations  of  the  Democratic  national  platform.  The  internal-revenue  tax  in 
that  platform  is  declared  to  be  a  war  tax,  and  the  repeal  of  crushing  war  taxes  is 
demanded.  It  has,  moreover,  been  the  policy  of  our  Government  after  each 
war  to  abandon  this  form  of  taxation  first,  as  evidenced  under  the  administra- 
tions of  Jefferson  and  Jackson;  and  a  tax  that  requires  an  armed  force  to  execute 
it  can  never  be  popular  in  a  free  country. 

Fifth.  Your  demand,  that  if  the  repeal  of  the  tobacco  tax,  or  other  internal 
taxes,  in  whole  or  in  part,  are  insisted  upon  by  us,  then  you  and  those  acting 
with  you  will  insist  that  "in  the  same  bill  an  equal  amount  of  reduction  in  rev- 


30 

enue  derived  from  customs"  shall  be  made,  if  it  presented  otherwise  debatable 
ground  for  a  compromise,  seems  to  vis  to  forestall  such  action  by  your  further  de- 
mand that  the  reduction  in  the  tariff  shall  be  made  upon  such  articles  only  as 
those  with  whom  you  are  acting  shall  indicate. 

This  is  equivalent  to  saying,  at  the  outset,  that  those  holding  different  views 
from  your  own  and  the  views  of  those  acting  with  you  shall  be  precluded  from 
having  any  voice  in  determining  what  things  duties  shall  be  reduced  on.  But, 
in  the  first  place,  internal  taxes  and  customs  have  never  stood  on  equal  ground 
in  our  system  of  taxation.  Tariff  taxes  have  been  always  our  chief  reliance  for 
revenues;  internal  ta^es  have  been  the  exceptional  taxes.  As  stated  in  the  last 
national  party  platform,  "from  the  foundation  of  this  Government  taxes  col- 
lected from  custom-houses  have  been  the  chief  sources  of  Federal  revenue;  such 
then  must  continue  to  be." 

In  the  next  place  we  hold  it  next  to  impossible  to  so  adjust  tariff  rates  as  to 
secure  a  definite  reduction  of  revenues  such  as  the  repeal  or  reduction  of  an 
internal-revenue  tax  will  produce.  When  a  direct  tax  is  repealed  we  know 
what  the  loss  to  the  revenue  will  be.  So  when  dutiable  articles  are  placed 
on  the  free-list;  but  a  reduction  of  the  rate  of  duty  may  be  followed  by  an  in- 
crease in  revenue,  and  not  a  decrease. 

Between  the  two  extremes  of  free  trade  on  the  one  hand  and  a  prohibitory 
tariff,  or  no  trade  on  the  other,  there  are  three  principlesand  only  three,  one  of  the 
other  of  which  must  govern  when  duties  are  intelligently  laid.  These  may  be 
represented  by  three  lines,  first,  a  horizontal  line,  representing  an  even  rate  laid 
upon  all  impprts  for  the  purpose  of  revenue  only ;  next,  an  irregular  line  repre- 
senting maximum  revenue,  and  the  third,  the  line  representing  the  difference 
in  the  cost  of  production  arising  out  of  the  different  conditions  under  which 
production  is  carried  on  in  this  and  other  countries.  This  line  is  always  and 
necessarily  above  the  line  of  maximum  revenue. 

Now  it  is  clear  that  a  reduction  of  duties  from  the  prohibitory  line  or  from  the 
competing,  or  difference  in  cost  line,  to  the  line  of  maximum  revenue,  will 
necessarily  result  in  an  increase  of  the  revenues.  A  reduction  in  the  tariff 
below  the  line  of  maximum  revenue  will  decrease  revenues;  but  in  what  pro- 
portion it  is  impossible  beforehand  to  tell ;  on  the  contrary,  an  increase  in  the 
tariff  rate  above  the  line  of  maximum  revenue  will  diminish  revenues,  until  the 
prohibitory  line  is  reached. 

\Ve  are  ready  to  join  in  reducing  the  tariff  on  all  articles  that  are  above  the 
line  of  difference  in  cost  of  production,  and  on  those  things  011  which  the  rate  of 
duty  is  now  above  that  line,  thus  permitting  monopolies  to  be  formed  to  arbi- 
trarily raise  prices  to  the  consumer,  without  benefiting  labor.  We  think  it  the 
imperative  duty  of  Congress  to  reduce  the  tariff'  so  as  to  prevent  the  possibility 
of  monopoly  combinations  to  put  up  prices  above  the  competing  point. 

Labor  has  no  interest  above  the  competing  line,  or  line  that  marks  the  differ- 
ence in  cost  of  production  ;  but  up  to  this  point  wage-earners  are  vitally  con- 
cerned, and  we  believe  that  only  by  maintaining  duties  up  to  this  line  on  im- 
portations in  the  production  of  which  there  is  no  competition  between  this  and 
other  countries,  can  labor  continue  to  receive  the  larger  share  of  what  it  pro- 
duces, which  our  industrial  system  affords  as  compared  with  the  industrial 
systemsof  other  countries.  The  continued  importation  of  any  competing  prod- 
uct, notwithstanding  the  tariff',  is  proof  that  the  duty  is  not  above  the  line  of 
difference  in  cost. 

Our  national  party  platform,  recognizing  this  controlling  principle,  declares 
that  "the  necessary  reduction  in  taxation  can  and  must  be  effected  without  de- 
priving American  labor  of  the  ability  to  comuete  successively  with  foreign  labor, 
and  without  imposing  lower  rates  of  duty  than  will  be  ample  to  cover  any  in- 
creased cost  of  production  which  may  exist  inconsequence  of  the  higher  rate  of 
wages  existing  in  this  country." 

In  the  face  of  this  declaration,  and  in  the  light  of  political  events  which  have 
transpired  since  the  last  national  convention  sustaining  this  principle,  we  would 
not  feel  justified  in  departing  from  it  in  any  revision  of  our  tariff  laws,  and  we 
certainly  do  not  think,  as  a  political  measure,  it  can  properly  be  asked  of  us. 
There  is,  however,  ample  reason  for  a  reduction  of  tariff'  and  a  corresponding 
reduction  of  the  revenues  without  contravening  this  important  principle.  All 
that  is  needed,  in  our  opinion,  is  a  disposition  to  meet  the  question  fairly  and 
deal  with  it  as  a  matter  of  business  and  not  of  politics. 

Sixth.  Respecting  your  proposition  to  submit  the  measure  proposed  by  us  to 
a  caucus  of  our  political  friends,  "all  parties  to  be  bound  by  such  action  as  it 
may  take  upon  the  subjects  to  which  the  bill  relates,"  is  one,  it  seems  to  us,  that 
ought  not  to  be  asked.  The  question  is  not  a  political  question  ;  it  is  not  a  party 
question,  for  Republicans  differon  it  as  do  Democrats;  the  differences  bet  ween 
us  are  not  political  differences,  but  differences  on  important  economic  and  in- 
dustrial questions,  and  we  submit  that  it  is  not  usual  in  either  party,  nor  right, 
to  attempt  to  bind  men  by  caucus  action  on  such  action,  and  thereby  not  only 
to  take  from  them  their  right  and  duty  to  act  in  accordance  with  their  own  con- 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A    000104390    0 


31 

victions,  but  compel  them  to  act  contrary  to  their  obligations  as  faithful  repre 
sentatives  of  the  people  who  have  sent  them  here. 

These,  too,  are  the  very  matters  respecting  which  we  are  attempting  to  effect 
a  compromise.  In  lieu,  therefore,  of  a  caucus,  we  suggest  that  a  committee 
composed  of  members  representing  different  phases  of  the  questions  involved 
in  the  two  measures  under  discussion  should  be  appointed  to  take  up  these  dif- 
ferences in  a  spirit  of  fairness,  with  a  view  of  coming  together  on  a  measureall 
can  support,  without  either  side  being  culled  upon  to  surrender  convictions  or 
to  prove  derelict  in  their  duty  to  their  constituents.  We  urge  the  suggestion  of 
a  conference  the  more  because  many  of  the  gentlemen  acting  with  us  in  the 
matter  of  internal  taxes  do  not  agree  on  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  tariff. 

Seventh.  In  accordance  with  your  fourth  suggestion,  that  in  case  no  other  ar- 
rangement is  arrived  at,  that  upon  reasonable  notice  a  motion  be  made  to  go 
into  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  011  House  bill  9702,  introduced  by  Mr.  RANDALL 
at  the  last  session  of  Congress,  we  have  to  say  that  due  notice  will  be  given  of 
the  time  when  it  is  proposed  .to  make  such  a  motion,  so  that  it  may  be  generally 
known.  We  can  not,  however,  close  this  communication  without  expressing 
again  the  hope  that  an  agreement  on  a  measure  which  out  political  friends  can 
generally  support  is  not  yet  impossible. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

SAMUEL  J.  RANDALL,  Pennsylvania, 
A.  J.  WARNER,  Ohio, 
BARCLAY  HENLEY,  California, 
WILLIAM  McADOO,  New  Jersey, 
JNO.  8.  HENDERSON,  North  Carolina, 
GEO.  D.  WISE,  Virginia, 
EDWARD  J.  GAY,  Louisiana, 

Committee. 
Hon.  JOHN  G.  CARLISLE  and  others. 

Mr.  HENDERSON,  of  North  Carolina.  I  reserve  the  residue  of  iny 
time. 

The  SPEAKER.  The  gentleman  from  North  Carolina  has  two  min- 
utes remaining.  [Cries  of  "  Vote  !  "  "Vote !  "1 

Mr.  CABELL.  As  the  House  seems  to  desire  a  vote  on  this  ques- 
tion, I  will  content  myself  with  asking  the  privilege  to  print  some  re- 
marks. 

Mr.  COWLES,  Mr  WISE,  Mr.  DANIEL,  and  Mr.  O'FEEEALL  made 
similar  requests. 

Mr.  TAULBEE.  I  ask  unanimous  consent  that  permission  to  print 
remarks  in  the  RECORD  on  this  bill  be  given  to  all  members  desiring 
to  do  so. 

The  SPEAKER.  Is  there  objection  to  the  request  of  the  gentleman 
from  Kentucky  [Mr.  TAULBEE]  ?  The  Chair  hears  none;  and  general 
leave  to  print  remarks  on  this  bill  is  granted. 

Mr.  HEPBURN.  I  yield  three  minutes  to  the  gentleman  from  New 
Hampshire  [Mr.  GALLINGEK]. 

Mr.  GALLINGER.  I  find,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  during  the  present 
Congress  this  House  has  passed  and  the  President  has  signed  public- 
building  bills  for  San  Antonio,  Tex. ;  El  Paso,  Tex. ;  Jacksonville, 
Fla. ;  Savannah,  Ga. ;  Huutsville,  Ala. ;  Augusta,  Ga. ;  Owensborough, 
Ky.,  and  Houston,  Tex.,  while  this  House  has  passed  and  the  President 
has  vetoed  public-building  bills  for  Duluth,  Minn.:  Zanesville,  Ohio; 
Sioux  City,  Iowa;  Dayton,  Ohio;  Portsmouth,  Ohio,  and  Lynn. 
Mass. 

I  find  furthermore  that  the  State  of  Ohio,  which  has  had  three  public- 
building  bills  vetoed  in  this  Congress,  pays  to  the  Government  annually 
over  $12,000,000  of  taxes,  while  the  States  of  Alabama,  Arkansas, 
Di-liixvare,  Florida,  Georgia,  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  North  Carolina, 
South  Carolina,  Maryland,  West  Virginia,  Virginia,  Tennessee,  and 
Texas,  fourteen  States  in  all,  pay  $10,000,000  in  taxes,  less  by  $2,000,000 
than  the  amount  paid  by  the  single  State  of  Ohio. 


Mr.  Speaker,  it  seems  to  me  that  under  this  administration  the 
Democratic  States  of  the  South  are  being  very  well  cared  for,  and  I 
think  their  "  moonshiners"  had  better  continue  to  pay  taxes  on  their 
whisky.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  HEPBURN.  I  yield  one  minute  to  the  gentleman  from  Mary- 
land [Mr.  McCoMAs].  " 

Mr.  MoCOMAS.  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  embraces  a  good  proposi- 
tion weighted  down  by  one  which  is  objectionable.  For  the  fruit- 
brandies  and  certain  other  distillations  1  would  have  consideration; 
but  so  far  as  can  here  be  seen  this  bill  will  make  it  too  easy  to  evade 
the  taxes,  too  easy  to  get  rid  of  the  burden;  and  when  the  clamor  has 
gone  by  for  a  revision  of  the  internal-revenue  laws  with  reference  to 
distilled  spirits  I  fear  that  it  will  be  found  that  in  our  hasty  legislation 
on  the  dying  day  of  a  dying  Congress  we  did  not  know  what  we  did. 
so  that  the  "moonshiner"  crept  through  in  the  early  daylight. 

I  think  tobacco  should  be  divorced  iu  this  ease  from  whisky.  Take 
away  the  whisky,  and  I  am  ready  to  vote  for  the  tobacco  grown  from 
the  soil  and  now  burdened  by  unjust  taxation  in  fifteen  States  and 
sixteen  hundred  counties. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

Mr.  HEPBUKX.  Mr.  Speaker,  gentlemen  who  advocate  this  bill 
have  said  very  little  about  the  interest  of  the  "moonshiner."  One  of 
the  provisions  of  this  bill  proposes  to  repeal  the  law  which  authorizes 
the  destruction  of  the  still  and  other  machinery  used  by  the  illicit 
manufacturer  of  distilled  spirits.  I  would  like  to  have  gentlemen  give 
some  reason  why  the  implements  of  trade  of  a  man  engaged  in  an  ille- 
gal business  ought  not  to  be  destroyed.  In  the  case  of  the  counterfeiter, 
as  well  as  the  man  who  engages  in  gaming,  the  implements  of  his  trade 
are  destroyed.  Why  should  not  the  same  rule  be  applied  in  the  case 
of  the  man  engaged  in  the  illicit  manufacture  of  whisky? 

Mr.  COWLES.  I  might  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Iowa  that  the 
implements  of  the  counterfeiter  can  not  be  put  to  a  lawful  use,  whereas 
the  implements  of  an  illicit  distillery  are  equally  serviceable  in  licensed 
Government  distilleries,  and  can  be  sold  for  such  use. 

Mr.  HEPBURN.  The  destruction  of  their  stills  and  machinery  is 
one  of  the  most  burdensome  and  effective  of  all  the  punishments  now 
inflicted  upon  these  mountain  gentlemen.  With  juries  chosen  from 
among  their  neighbors  they  can  always  be  assured  of  the  most  lenient 
consideration  when  personally  arraigned.  But  when  the  officers  of  the 
Government  destroy  their  stills,  there  is  inflicted  a  punishment  which 
is  felt.  If  such  destruction  is  in  any  case  unjust  and  without  due 
process  of  law;  if,  in  fact,  the  person  whose  still  is  destroyed  is  not  en- 
gaged in  the  illicit  manufacture  of  liquor,  he  has  his  action  against  the 
sureties  of  the  officer  and  his  action  against  the  officer  himself  for  his 
illegal  proceedings. 

They  now  propose  these  distilleries  shall  not  be  destroyed,  but  that 
they  shall  be  offered  for  sale.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman  from 
North  Carolina,  iu  his  district  with  its  scores,  possibly  hundreds,  may 
be,  of  illicit,  manufactories,  what  man  would  dare  to  buy  in  competi- 
tion with  the  owner  for  this  machinery  ?  Under  the  cunning  processes 
which  the.  gentleman  proposes  to  inaugurate  here  is  the  still  of  an  in- 
dividual which  has  been  confiscated  by  the  law,  put  up  for  sale,  knocked 
down  to  whom  and  for  a  nominal  sum. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 


